Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

This report is one in a series of volumes published by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to provide information of general interest regarding 

environmental issues associated with specific industrial sectors. The documents were 

developed under contract by Abt Associates (Cambridge, MA), and Booz-Allen & 

Hamilton, Inc. (McLean, VA). This publication may be purchased from the 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. A listing of available 

Sector Notebooks and document numbers is included on the following page. 

All telephone orders should be directed to: 

Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 20402 

(202) 512-1800 

FAX (202) 512-2250 

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, M-F 

Using the form provided at the end of this document, all mail orders should be 

directed to: 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

P.O. Box 371954 

Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 

Complimentary volumes are available to certain groups or subscribers, such as public 

and academic libraries, Federal, State, local, and foreign governments, and the media. 

For further information, and for answers to questions pertaining to these documents, 

please refer to the contact names and numbers provided within this volume. 

Electronic versions of all Sector Notebooks are available free of charge at the following 

web address: www.epa.gov/oeca/sector. Direct technical questions to the �Feedback�

button at the bottom of the web page. 

Cover photograph by Dan Cabrera, U.S. Department of The Interior. 

September 1995 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

EPA/310-R-95-008

EPA Office of Compliance Sector 

Notebook Project 

Profile of the Metal Mining Industry 

September 1995 

Office of Compliance 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M St., SW (MC 2221-A) 

Washington, DC 20460 

SIC Code 10 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Sector Notebook Contacts 

The Sector Notebooks were developed by the EPA�s Office of Compliance. Questions relating 

to the Sector Notebook Project can be directed to: 

Seth Heminway, Coordinator, Sector Notebook Project

US EPA Office of Compliance

401 M St., SW (2223-A)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-7017

Questions and comments regarding the individual documents can be directed to the 

appropriate specialists listed below. 

Document Number Industry 

EPA/310-R-95-001. Dry Cleaning Industry

EPA/310-R-95-002. Electronics and Computer Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-003. Wood Furniture and Fixtures Industry

EPA/310-R-95-004. Inorganic Chemical Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-005. Iron and Steel Industry

EPA/310-R-95-006. Lumber and Wood Products Industry

EPA/310-R-95-007. Fabricated Metal Products Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-008. Metal Mining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-009. Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry

EPA/310-R-95-010. Nonferrous Metals Industry

EPA/310-R-95-011. Non-Fuel, Non-Metal Mining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-012. Organic Chemical Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-013. Petroleum Refining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-014. Printing Industry

EPA/310-R-95-015. Pulp and Paper Industry

EPA/310-R-95-016. Rubber and Plastic Industry

EPA/310-R-95-017. Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Industry

EPA/310-R-95-018. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-001. Air Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-002. Ground Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-003. Water Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-004. Metal Casting Industry

EPA/310-R-97-005. Pharmaceuticals Industry

EPA/310-R-97-006. Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-007. Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-008. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry

EPA/310-R-97-009. Textile Industry

EPA/310-R-97-010. Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997

EPA/310-R-98-001. Aerospace Industry

EPA/310-R-98-002. Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide, and

Fertilizer Industry

EPA/310-R-98-003. Agricultural Crop Production Industry

EPA/310-R-98-004. Agricultural Livestock Production Ind.

EPA/310-R-98-005. Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

Industry

EPA/310-R-98-008. Local Government Operations

Contact Phone (202) 

Joyce Chandler 564-7073 

Steve Hoover 564-7007 

Bob Marshall 564-7021 

Walter DeRieux 564-7067 

Maria Malave 564-7027 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Scott Throwe 564-7013 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Rob Lischinsky 564-2628 

Walter DeRieux 564-7067 

Tom Ripp 564-7003 

Ginger Gotliffe 564-7072 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Maria Malave 564-7027 

Scott Throwe 564-7013 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Emily Chow 564-7071 

Sally Sasnett 564-7074 

Rafael Sanchez 564-7028 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Belinda Breidenbach 564-7022 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Amy Porter 564-4149 

Ginah Mortensen (913)551-7864 

Ginah Mortensen (913)551-7864 

Dan Chadwick 564-7054 

John Dombrowski 564-7036 

September 1995 iii SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

*Spanish translations available. 

SIC Code 10 iv September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF EXHIBITS ..........................................................................................................vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................... viii

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT.................................... 1

I.A. Summary of the Sector Notebook Project ........................................ 1

I.B. Additional Information ..................................................................... 2

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE METAL MINING INDUSTRY ....................................... 4

II.A. Introduction, Background, and Scope of the Notebook ................. 4

II.B. Characterization of the Metal Mining Industry .............................. 5

II.B.1. Industry Size and Distribution ........................................ 6

II.B.2. Economic Trends............................................................. 10

III. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................... 15

III.A. Industrial Processes in the Metal Mining Industry....................... 15

III.B. Mining Process Pollution Outputs.................................................. 28

IV. WASTE RELEASE PROFILE............................................................................... 37

IV.A. Waste Release Data for the Metal Mining Industry...................... 37

IV.B Other Data Sources........................................................................... 46

V. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES ................................................... 52

V.A. Controlling and Mitigating Mining Wastes................................... 54

V.B. Innovative Waste Management Practices ...................................... 58

September 1995 v SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

METAL MINING 

(SIC 10) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) 

Page 

VI. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS............................... 69

VI.A. General Description of Major Statutes ........................................... 69

VI.B. Industry-Specific Requirements...................................................... 80

VI.C. Pending and Proposed Regulatory Requirements........................ 90

VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROFILE ................................................. 93

VII.A. Metal Mining Compliance History ............................... 97

VII.B. Comparison of Enforcement Activity Between

Selected Industries .......................................................... 99

VII.C. Review of Major Legal Actions.................................... 104

VII.C.1. Supplemental Environmental Projects........................ 104

VII.D. EPA Hardrock Mining Framework.............................................. 105

VIII. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES ........................... 109

VIII.A. Sector-related Environmental Programs and Activities ............. 109

VIII.B. EPA Voluntary Programs.............................................................. 114

VIII.C. Trade Association Activity............................................................ 115

IX. CONTACTS/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS/

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 119

SIC Code 10 vi September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page 

Exhibit 1 Total Mine Production - USA, in Billions of Dollars ..................................6

Exhibit 2 Geographic Distribution of Industry............................................................7

Exhibit 3 Metal - Producing Areas................................................................................8

Exhibit 4 Metal - Producing Areas................................................................................8

Exhibit 5 Number of Facilities per State.......................................................................9

Exhibit 6 Major Uses for Selected Metal Minerals.......................................................9

Exhibit 7 Facility Size Distribution.............................................................................10

Exhibit 8 Metal Mine Production - USA, in Billions of Dollars ...............................11

Exhibit 9 Sector-Specific Processes and Wastes/Materials.......................................19

Exhibit 10 Copper Dump Leach Operation .................................................................22

Exhibit 11 Representative Hydrometallurgical Recovery of Copper........................23

Exhibit 12 Gold Heap Leaching Operation..................................................................26

Exhibit 13 Chemicals Used in High Volume ......................................................... 27, 28

Exhibit 14 Volume of Waste Generated for Selected Metals ......................................29

Exhibit 15 Steps in the Mining Process and Their Potential Environmental 

Impacts .................................................................................................... 29, 30

Exhibit 16 Potential Mine Waste Mitigation Measures......................................... 34, 35

Exhibit 17 Ecosystem Mitigation Measures .................................................................36

Exhibit 18 Copper-Related Waste Releases..................................................................38

Exhibit 19 Lead and Zinc-Related Waste Releases......................................................39

Exhibit 20 Gold and Silver-Related Waste Releases ......................40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

Exhibit 21 Pollutant Releases (Short Tons/Year) ........................................................47

Exhibit 22 AIRS Releases ................................................................................... 48, 49, 50

Exhibit 23 Selected NPL Mining Sites ..........................................................................51

Exhibit 24 Waste Minimization and Prevention Opportunities.................................59

Exhibit 25 Mine Water Management Techniques .......................................................66

Exhibit 26 Mine Discharges Subject to Permitting .....................................................83

Exhibit 27 Mine Discharge Limitations........................................................................84

Exhibit 28 Mill Discharge Limitations..........................................................................84

Exhibit 29 Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Metal Mining

Industry.........................................................................................................98

September 1995 vii SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONT'D)

Page 

Exhibit 30 Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected

Industries ....................................................................................................100

Exhibit 31 One-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected Industries

.....................................................................................................................101

Exhibit 32 Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary by Statute for Selected

Industries ....................................................................................................102

Exhibit 33 One-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary for

Selected Industries .....................................................................................103

Exhibit 34 Supplemental Environmental Projects .....................................................105

SIC Code 10 viii September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AFS - AIRS Facility Subsystem (CAA database)

AIRS - Aerometric Information Retrieval System (CAA database)

BIFs - Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (RCRA)

BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CAA - Clean Air Act

CAAA - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

Act 

CERCLIS - CERCLA Information System 

CFCs - Chlorofluorocarbons 

CO - Carbon Monoxide 

COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand 

CSI - Common Sense Initiative 

CWA - Clean Water Act 

D&B - Dun and Bradstreet Marketing Index 

ELP - Environmental Leadership Program 

EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FINDS - Facility Indexing System 

HAPs - Hazardous Air Pollutants (CAA) 

HSDB - Hazardous Substances Data Bank 

IDEA - Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis 

LDR - Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA) 

LEPCs - Local Emergency Planning Committees 

MACT - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (CAA) 

MCLGs - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 

MCLs - Maximum Contaminant Levels 

MEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

MSDSs - Material Safety Data Sheets 

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAA) 

NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement 

NCDB - National Compliance Database (for TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA) 

NCP - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

NEIC - National Enforcement Investigation Center 

NESHAP - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

September 1995 ix SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONT'D)

NOX - Nitrogen Oxide 

NOV - Notice of Violation

NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (CWA)

NPL - National Priorities List

NRC - National Response Center

NSPS - New Source Performance Standards (CAA)

OAR - Office of Air and Radiation

OECA - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OPA - Oil Pollution Act

OPPTS - Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSW - Office of Solid Waste

OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW - Office of Water

P2 - Pollution Prevention

PCS - Permit Compliance System (CWA Database)

POTW - Publicly Owned Treatments Works

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS - RCRA Information System

SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act

SEPs - Supplementary Environmental Projects

SERCs - State Emergency Response Commissions

SIC - Standard Industrial Classification

SO2 - Sulfur Dioxide

SX/EW - Solvent Extraction/Electrowinning

TRI - Toxic Release Inventory

TRIS - Toxic Release Inventory System

TRIS - Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System

TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act

TSS - Total Suspended Solids

UIC - Underground Injection Control (SDWA)

UST - Underground Storage Tanks (RCRA)

VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds

SIC Code 10 x September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

METAL MINING

(SIC 10)

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT 

I.A. Summary of the Sector Notebook Project 

Environmental policies based upon comprehensive analysis of air, water, 

and land pollution are an inevitable and logical supplement to traditional 

single-media approaches to environmental protection. Environmental 

regulatory agencies are beginning to embrace comprehensive, multistatute solutions to facility permitting, enforcement and compliance 

assurance, education/outreach, research, and regulatory development 

issues. The central concepts driving the new policy direction are that 

pollutant releases to each environmental medium (air, water, and land) 

affect each other, and that environmental strategies must actively identify 

and address these inter-relationships by designing policies for the "whole" 

facility. One way to achieve a whole facility focus is to design 

environmental policies for similar industrial facilities. By doing so, 

environmental concerns that are common to the manufacturing of similar 

products can be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Recognition of 

the need to develop the industrial "sector-based” approach within the 

EPA Office of Compliance led to the creation of this document. 

The Sector Notebook Project was initiated by the Office of Compliance 

within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to 

provide its staff and managers with summary information for eighteen 

specific industrial sectors. As other EPA offices, States, the regulated 

community, environmental groups, and the public became interested in 

this project, the scope of the original project was expanded. The ability to 

design comprehensive, common sense environmental protection measures 

for specific industries is dependent on knowledge of several inter-related 

topics. For the purposes of this project, the key elements chosen for 

inclusion are: general industry information (economic and geographic); a 

description of industrial processes; pollution outputs; pollution 

prevention opportunities; Federal statutory and regulatory framework; 

compliance history; and a description of partnerships that have been 

formed between regulatory agencies, the regulated community, and the 

public. 

For any given industry, each topic listed above could alone be the subject 

of a lengthy volume. However, in order to produce a manageable 

document, this project focuses on providing summary information for 

September 1995 1 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

each topic. This format provides the reader with a synopsis of each issue, 

and references where more in-depth information is available. Text within 

each profile was researched from a variety of sources, and was usually 

condensed from more detailed sources pertaining to specific topics. This 

approach allows for a wide coverage of activities that can be further 

explored based upon the citations and references listed at the end of this 

profile. As a check on the information included, each notebook went 

through an external review process. The Office of Compliance 

appreciates the efforts of all those that participated in this process and 

enabled us to develop more complete, accurate, and up-to-date 

summaries. Many of those who reviewed this notebook are listed as 

contacts in Section IX and may be sources of additional information. The 

individuals and groups on this list do not necessarily concur with all 

statements within this notebook. 

I.B. Additional Information 

Providing Comments 

OECA's Office of Compliance plans to periodically review and update the 

notebooks and will make these updates available both in hard copy and 

electronically. If you have any comments on the existing notebook, or if 

you would like to provide additional information, please send a hard 

copy and computer disk to the EPA Office of Compliance, Sector 

Notebook Project, 401 M St., SW (2223-A), Washington, DC 20460. 

Comments can also be uploaded to the Enviro$en$e Bulletin Board or the 

Enviro$en$e World Wide Web for general access to all users of the 

system. Follow instructions in Appendix A for accessing these data 

systems. Once you have logged in, procedures for uploading text are 

available from the on-line Enviro$en$e Help System. 

Adapting Notebooks to Particular Needs 

The scope of the existing notebooks reflect an approximation of the 

relative national occurrence of facility types that occur within each sector. 

In many instances, industries within specific geographic regions or States 

may have unique characteristics that are not fully captured in these 

profiles. For this reason, the Office of Compliance encourages State and 

local environmental agencies and other groups to supplement or repackage the information included in this notebook to include more 

specific industrial and regulatory information that may be available. 

Additionally, interested States may want to supplement the "Summary of 

Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations" section with State and local 

SIC Code 10 2 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

requirements. Compliance or technical assistance providers may also 

want to develop the "Pollution Prevention" section in more detail. Please 

contact the appropriate specialist listed on the opening page of this 

notebook if your office is interested in assisting us in the further 

development of the information or policies addressed within this volume. 

If you are interested in assisting in the development of new notebooks for 

sectors not covered in the original eighteen, please contact the Office of 

Compliance at 202-564-2395. 

Because this profile was not intended to be a stand-alone document 

concerning the metal mining industry, appended is a full reference of 

additional EPA documents and reports on this subject, as listed in the 

March edition of the Federal Register. 

September 1995 3 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE METAL MINING INDUSTRY 

This section provides background information on the size, geographic 

distribution, employment, production, sales, and economic condition of 

the metal mining industry. The type of facilities described within the 

document are also described in terms of their Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) codes. 

II.A. Introduction, Background, and Scope of the Notebook 

The metal mining industry includes facilities engaged primarily in 

exploring for metallic minerals, developing mines, and ore mining. These 

ores are valued chiefly for the metals they contain, which are recovered 

for use as constituents of alloys, chemicals, pigments, or other products. 

The industry sector also includes ore dressing and beneficiating 

operations. The categorization corresponds to the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) code 10, published by the Department of Commerce to 

track the flow of goods and services within the economy. 

The SIC 10 group consists of the following three-digit breakout of 

industries: 

SIC 101 - Iron Ores

SIC 102 - Copper Ores

SIC 103 - Lead and Zinc Ores

SIC 104 - Gold and Silver Ores

SIC 106 - Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium

SIC 108 - Metal Mining Services

SIC 109 - Miscellaneous Metal Ores.

Although the group includes all metal ore mining, the scope of mining 

industries with a significant domestic presence is concentrated in iron, 

copper, lead, zinc, gold, and silver. These represent the most common 

hardrock minerals mined domestically, and comprise an essential sector 

of the nation's economy by providing basic raw materials for major 

sectors of the U.S. economy. In addition, the extraction and beneficiation 

of these minerals generate large amounts of wastes. For these reasons, 

this profile's focus is limited to the above-stated sectors of the SIC 10 

metal mining industry. 

While such metals as molybdenum, platinum, and uranium are also 

included in SIC code 10, mining for these metals does not constitute a 

significant portion of the overall metal mining industry, nor of the waste 

SIC Code 10 4 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

generation in mining processes; these metals are therefore excluded from 

this profile. 

In the global market, the U.S. is a major producer of iron, copper, lead, 

zinc, gold, and silver. In 1993, domestic mines were responsible for six 

percent of iron ore production, 13 percent of copper ore production, 13 

percent of lead production, eight percent of zinc production, 14 percent of 

gold production, and 11 percent of silver production. Despite an 

extraordinary wealth of domestic metal sources, with the exception of 

gold, the U.S. is a net importer of all the above-mentioned metals. 

Regulations pertaining to the industry are numerous, but an emphasis is 

placed on point source discharges to waters, regulated by the Clean Water 

Act. These industries also face existing and future regulation under the 

Clean Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act, and the Clean Air Act. Unlike 

manufacturing facilities, facilities involved in mining metals are not 

currently required to report chemical releases and transfers to the Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) Public Release Database under the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986. As a result, TRI 

data is not available as a source of information on chemical releases in the 

metal mining industry; alternative sources of data have been identified 

for purposes of this profile. 

II.B. Characterization of the Metal Mining Industry 

The metal mining industry is predominantly located in the Western 

States, where most copper, silver, and gold mining occurs. Iron ore 

production is centered in the Great Lakes region, while zinc mining 

occurs in Tennessee and lead mining in Missouri. Large companies tend 

to dominate mining of such metals as copper, silver, and gold, while more 

diverse mine operators may be involved in mining lead, zinc, and iron 

metals. Metals generated from U.S. mining operations are used 

domestically in a wide range of products, including automobiles, 

electrical and industrial equipment, jewelry, and photographic materials. 

Metal mine production has remained somewhat stagnant over recent 

years, and metals exploration has declined, although future production is 

expected to climb as a result of continued industrial manufacturing and a 

growing economy. 

The following exhibit depicts the proportion of metal mining production 

within the entire mining industry. 

September 1995 5 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 1

Total Mine Production - USA, in Billions of Dollars

Industrial 

Minerals & 

Aggregates 

Coal 

Metals 

$20 

$21.60 

$10.40 

Source: Randol Mining Directory 1994/95. 

II.B.1. Industry Size and Distribution 

Variation in facility counts occur across data sources due to many factors, 

including reporting and definition differences. This document does not 

attempt to reconcile these differences, but rather reports the data as they 

are maintained by each source. 

Geographic Distribution 

Though mining operations are performed throughout the U.S., the 

concentration of metal mining is located in the Western region of the 

country. Copper, gold, and silver deposits are primarily found in Utah, 

Montana, Nevada, California, and Arizona. Zinc is mined primarily in 

Alaska, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. Lead deposits are mined 

primarily in Missouri, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana, while 

Minnesota and Michigan are the primary sources of domestic iron ore 

production. The U.S. Bureau of Mines lists 482 active mines in its 1994 

Mineral Commodity Summaries. (See Exhibits 2, 3, and 4). Exhibit 5 

SIC Code 10 6 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

illustrates the number of facilities performing metal-specific operations by 

State. 

Exhibit 2 

Geographic Distribution of Industry 

10 

17 

4 

33 

63 

46 

7 

29 

16 

16 

10 

2 

7 

13 

12 

7 

6 

3 

33 

Source: Based on U.S. Bureau of Mines 1992 and 1994 Data. 

September 1995 7 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibits 3 & 4

Metal-Producing Areas

SIC Code 10 8 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 5 

Number of Facilities per State 

Type of Facility/ 

Total Number 

States and Number of Mines 

Iron Ore (22) MI-2; MN-7; MT-1; SD-1; TX -2; UT-2 

Silver (150) AK-15; AZ-15; CA-14; CO-4; ID-12; MI-1; MT-9; NV-1; NY-1; OR-1; 

SC-3; SD-4; UT-4; WA-4 

Gold (212) AK-13; AZ-14; CA-19; CO-7; ID-11; MT-9; NM-5; NV-61; OR-2; SC-4; 

SD-5; WA-4; UT-2 

Lead (23) AK-2; AZ-1; CO-2; ID-1; IL-1; MO-7; MT-2; NM-2; NY-2; TN-2; 

WA-1 

Zinc (25) AK-3; CO-1; ID-2; MO-4; MT-1; NY-2; TN-10; WA-1 

Copper (50) AZ-16; CO-2; ID-3; MI-3; MO-2; MT-3; NM-9; NV-1; OR-1; UT-1 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines 1992 and 1994 Data. 

Metals mined under SIC 10 are used for a wide variety of products, and 

are the primary raw materials used in many industrial applications. As 

noted in a series of Technical Resource Documents prepared by EPA's 

Office of Solid Waste, copper is essential to the electronics and 

construction industry; iron ore provides the base material for the steel, 

automotive, and transportation industries; gold is used primarily in 

jewelry and the decorative arts, but is also used in the electronics industry 

and in dentistry. Gold also serves as an important investment vehicle and 

reserve asset. All of these metals are essential to the operation of a 

modern economy. Exhibit 6 provides a more detailed list of the uses for 

these metals. 

Exhibit 6 

Major Uses for Selected Metal Minerals 

Commodity Number 

of Mines Major Uses 

Total U.S. 

Production 

(metric tons) 

Copper 50 Building construction, electrical and electronic products, 

industrial machinery and equipment, transportation 

equipment, and consumer and general products 

1,765,000 

Gold 212+ Jewelry and arts, industrial (mainly electronic), dental 329 

Iron Ore 22 Steel 55,593,000 

Lead 23 Transportation (batteries, fuel tanks, solder, seals, and 

bearings); electrical, electronic, and communications 

uses 

398,000 

Silver 150 Photographic products, electrical and electronic, 

electroplated ware, sterling ware, and jewelry 

1,800 

Zinc 25 Galvanizing, diecast alloys, brass, and bronze 524,000 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries 1994, and Minerals Yearbook, Volume I: Metals and 

Minerals, 1992. 

September 1995 9 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

II.B.2. Economic Trends 

The estimated U.S. metal mine production value for 1993 was $12.15 

billion, accounting for less than one percent of gross national product. In 

1993, the total employment in the metal mining industry stood at nearly 

50,000 according to the National Mining Association (See Exhibit 7 for the 

distribution of employment by facility size). Motor vehicle 

manufacturing helped support demand for materials such as steel (an iron 

alloy), copper, lead, and zinc. However, mining production volumes 

remained relatively stagnant. In some cases, ore production was down 

(lead - four percent; iron ore - one percent; zinc - four percent; silver - six 

percent). The other principal metal ore industries, copper and gold, 

remained even with 1992 production levels. Metals production in general 

is expected to increase, due to anticipated continued growth in the motor 

vehicle industry. 

Exhibit 7

Facility Size Distribution

Type of Facility* Facilities 

w/ 1 - 9 

employees 

Facilities 

w/ 10 - 99 

employees 

Facilities 

w/ 100 + 

employees 

Total 

SIC 1021 - Copper 102 30 24 156 

SIC 1031 - Lead and 

Zinc 

40 8 16 64 

SIC 1041 - Gold 586 122 53 761 

SIC 1011 - Iron 81 14 11 106 

SIC 1044 - Silver 73 9 2 84 

Source: Dun and Bradstreet, 1993.

*Note: Sources define the term "facility" differently, which causes the apparent disparity between those totals cited above and

those accounted for by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Represented in these facility numbers are recreational mine 

operators predominantly located in Alaska, California, and Montana. 

A preliminary evaluation of 1992 survey responses from 36 Canadian and 

25 U.S. mineral companies operating in the U.S. suggests that the average 

corporate exploration budget was reduced by more than one-half from 

1991 levels. Metal exploration in the U.S. during 1992 appears to have 

declined on an average company basis by more than 60 percent. 

Although specific gold and copper deposits continue to command 

attention, most U.S. programs have been curtailed. The BLM estimated 

that 75 percent of company claims were dropped during 1993 (Federal 

mining law grants sole mineral rights to a prospector if there is a 

discovery of economic value; prior to such a discovery, a "claim" is 

honored if the prospector maintains an actual presence on site and 

completes a progressive amount of developmental work per year). 

SIC Code 10 10 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

The number of companies that have shifted portions of their exploration 

budgets to Latin America is growing. More than 250 companies, about 10 

percent of the North American mining exploration industry, are now 

active in Latin America, especially Mexico and Chile. Among the forces 

driving U.S. companies abroad is the recent privatization of world-class 

mineral deposits, the presence of rich overseas ore deposits, depletion of 

prime domestic ore sources, labor costs, and the lack of significant 

regulatory pressure in the developing world. 

The U.S. economy's slow but steady growth rate of the last several years is 

expected to spur demand in major domestic materials-consuming 

industries, such as the auto industry. In addition, developing economies 

in South America and Asia have had higher consumption of mineral 

materials as political regimes have liberalized their economies to meet 

demands for higher standards of living. 

The following exhibit illustrates production values in 1993 for various 

metal mining industry sectors. 

September 1995 11 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 8

Metal Mine Production - USA, in Billions of Dollars

Copper 

Gold 

Iron Ore 

Zinc 

Magnesium 

Lead 

Molybedenum 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

1993 

1992 

$4.18 

$3.65 

$1.73 

$0.67 

$0.36 

$0.31 

$0.19 

$3.60 

$3.79 

$1.70 

$0.51 

$0.41 

$0.27 

$0.16 

1993 Total Value (estimated) 

$10.439 billion 

Source: Randol Mining Directory 1994/95. 

Following is a brief summary of current trends in domestic mining 

industries. Much of the information presented is based on a report 

prepared by EPA's Office of Research and Development. 

Iron 

In 1993, domestic production of iron ore remained at approximately the 

same level as that of 1992. The value of usable ore shipped from mines in 

Minnesota, Michigan, and six other States in 1993 was estimated at $1.7 

billion. Iron ore was produced domestically by 16 companies operating 

22 mines, 16 concentration plants, and 10 pelletizing plants. The mines 

included 19 open pits and one underground operation. Nine of these 

mines, operated by six companies, accounted for the vast majority of the 

output. 

The U.S. steel industry was the primary consumer of iron ore, accounting 

for 98 percent of domestic iron ore consumption in 1992. Domestic 

demand for iron ore has fallen behind that for iron and steel due to 

changes in industrial processes, including the increased use of scrap 

SIC Code 10 12 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

(especially by mini-mills) and the use of imported semi-finished steel. 

Twelve percent of domestic iron consumption in 1993 was imported. 

While world consumption of iron ore increased slightly, prices declined 

for the third consecutive year. 

Copper 

World copper production remained at approximately the same level in 

1993 as in 1992, while world consumption of refined copper declined. 

However, refined copper demand in the U.S. and Canada ran counter to 

the world trend. Domestic demand for copper rose by approximately 

eight percent in 1993; the U.S. imported six percent of its copper needs in 

1993. Consumption was expected to increase in 1994 to more than 2.4 

million tons, up from the previous year's 2.3 million tons. Domestic brass 

mills (a mixture of copper and zinc) ran at capacity. 

Copper was recovered at 50 mines in 1993, and the top 15 mines 

accounted for more than 95 percent of production. The primary end uses 

for copper are building construction (42 percent), electrical and electronic 

products (24 percent), industrial machinery and equipment (13 percent), 

transportation equipment (11 percent), and consumer and general 

products (10 percent). 

According to Standard & Poor's, the copper mining industry is dominated 

by three producers (ASARCO Incorporated, Cyprus Amax Mining 

Company, and Phelps Dodge), which are financially viable operations. 

However, not all copper mining firms are as healthy financially. From 

1989 to 1992, the industry was characterized by decreasing operating 

revenues and net income, while short and long-term liabilities increased 

for some companies. With the recent economic recovery, however, the 

overall outlook for the copper industry is financially secure. 

Lead 

The U.S. imported 15 percent of its lead needs in 1993. Transportation is 

the major end use for lead, with approximately 83 percent being used to 

produce batteries, fuel tanks, solder, seals, and bearings. Electrical, 

electronic, and communications uses, ammunition, TV glass, construction, 

and protective coatings accounted for more than nine percent of lead 

consumption. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. lead production has 

remained relatively constant through 1994, while prices for lead 

continued an upward trend that began in 1993. Consumption of lead in 

September 1995 13 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

the U.S. increased in 1994, due to greater demand for original equipment 

batteries in the automotive industry. This trend is expected to continue. 

Zinc 

In 1993, the U.S. imported 26 percent of its zinc needs. Domestically, 25 

zinc mines produced 99 percent of the output; Alaska's Red Dog Mine 

accounted for nearly one-half of the total. Zinc's main use has 

traditionally been to provide corrosion protection through galvanization 

for iron and steel. In 1991, the largest consumers of zinc were the 

construction (43 percent), transportation (20 percent), machinery (12 

percent), and electrical (12 percent) sectors. 

Domestic mine production increased substantially in 1994 in response to 

domestic demand, according to the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The largest 

growth occurred in the galvanizing and brass and bronze industries, due 

to increased automobile production. Exports of zinc concentrates were up 

slightly in 1994. 

Gold 

Domestic gold mines continue to produce at record levels, maintaining 

the U.S. position as the world's second largest gold-producing nation (12 

percent of world resources), after the Republic of South Africa. The U.S 

was a net exporter of gold in 1993. Gold was produced at 200 lode mines 

and numerous placer mines (see discussion below for definition of lode 

and placer mines). Twenty-five mines yielded 75 percent of the gold 

produced. Estimated end-uses for 1993 were as follows: jewelry and arts 

(70 percent); industrial (mainly electronic; 23 percent); and dental (seven 

percent). 

The gold mining industry is dominated by a few firms that are gaining an 

increasing portion of the market share and that remain financially strong. 

Smaller firms have seen decreasing operating revenues and net incomes, 

and may have greater difficulty in the future meeting short-term debt. 

The trend in gold exploration activities continues to be toward Latin 

American nations, where favorable geology and liberalized mining 

regulations hold the promise for greater long-term success and reduced 

risk to investment capital. 

Silver 

Continuing the trend begun in 1991, several large domestic silver 

producers halted mining operations in 1993 due to the continuing low 

SIC Code 10 14 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

price of silver. As a result, U.S. mine production of silver declined for the 

fourth consecutive year, and three major silver producers had negative 

net income. Silver prices have recently begun to rise, however; with the 

prospect of continued higher prices, some companies are considering 

resuming operations at currently inactive mines. 

The U.S. is a net importer of silver. One hundred and fifty mines in 14 

States mined silver in 1993. However, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and 

Montana accounted for 74 percent of all domestic production. Estimated 

end-uses for 1993 were as follows: photographic products (50 percent); 

and electrical and electronic products (20 percent). 

September 1995 15 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

III. Industrial Process Description 

This section describes the major industrial processes within the metal 

mining industry, including the materials and equipment used, and the 

processes employed. The section is designed for those interested in 

gaining a general understanding of the industry, and for those interested 

in the inter-relationship between the industrial process and the topics 

described in subsequent sections of this profile -- pollutant outputs, 

pollution prevention opportunities, and Federal regulations. This section 

does not attempt to replicate published engineering information that is 

available for this industry. Refer to Section IX for a list of available 

reference documents. 

This section describes commonly used production processes, associated 

raw materials, the byproducts produced or released, and the materials 

either recycled or transferred off-site. This discussion, coupled with 

schematic drawings of the identified processes, provide a concise 

description of where wastes may be produced in the process. This section 

also describes the potential fate (air, water, land) of these waste products. 

III.A. Industrial Processes in the Metal Mining Industry 

Much of the following information has been presented previously in 

reports and issue papers drafted in support of various EPA offices, 

including the Office of Solid Waste, the Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. For a 

complete listing of reference documents, please see Section IX. 

Metals are mined from two types of deposits. The first, lode deposits, are 

concentrated deposits that are fairly well-defined from surrounding rock. 

Iron, copper, lead, gold, silver, and zinc are mined mainly from lode 

deposits. The second type of deposits, placer deposits, occur with sand, 

gravel, and rock; they are usually deposited by flowing water or ice, and 

contain metals that were once part of a lode deposit. Only a small 

percentage of domestic gold and silver is derived from placer deposits. 

There are three general approaches to mining metals: 

Surface or open-pit mining requires extensive blasting, as well as rock, 

soil, and vegetation removal, to reach lode deposits. Benches are cut into 

the walls of the mine to provide access to progressively deeper ore, as 

upper-level ore is depleted. Ore is removed from the mine and 

transported to milling and beneficiating plants for concentrating the ore, 

SIC Code 10 16 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

and smelting, and/or refining. Open pit mining is the primary domestic 

source of iron, copper, gold, and silver. 

Underground mining entails sinking a shaft to reach the main body of 

ore. "Drifts," or passages, are then cut from the shaft at various depths to 

access the ore, which is removed to the surface, crushed, concentrated, 

and refined. While underground mines do not create the volume of 

overburden waste associated with surface mining, some waste rock must 

still be brought to the surface for disposal. Waste rock may either be 

returned to the mine as fill or put in a disposal area. In the U.S., only 

lead, antimony, and zinc are solely underground operations. 

Solution or fluid mining entails drilling into intact rock and using 

chemical solutions to dissolve lode deposits. During solution mining, the 

leaching solution (usually a dilute acid) penetrates the ore, dissolving 

soluble metals. This pregnant leach solution is then retrieved for recovery 

at a solvent extraction and electrowinning (SX/EW) plant. This method 

of mining is used in some parts of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico to 

recover copper. 

Historically, the primary mining method has been underground mining. 

However, with the advent in recent decades of large earth moving 

equipment, less expensive energy sources, and improved extraction and 

beneficiation technologies, surface mining now prevails in most industry 

sectors. Open-pit mining is generally more economical and safer than 

underground mining, especially when the ore body is large and the 

overburden (surface vegetation, soil, and rock) relatively shallow. In fact, 

the lower cost of surface mining has allowed much lower-grade ores to be 

exploited economically in some industry sectors. 

Metal mining processes include extraction and beneficiation steps during 

production. Extraction removes the ore from the ground, while 

beneficiation concentrates the valuable metal in the ore by removing 

unwanted constituents. Often, more than one metal is targeted in 

beneficiation processes. For example, silver is often beneficiated and 

recovered with copper. The beneficiation method selected varies with 

mining operations and depends on ore characteristics and economic 

considerations. 

The following sections provide more detail on extraction methods and 

beneficiation processes, as they relate to the mining of each metal. 

September 1995 17 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Extraction Processes 

As described in a report drafted for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, extraction involves removing any overburden, then drilling, 

blasting, and mucking the broken ore and waste rock. 

Mobile rigs drill holes in rock, which can then be filled with explosives 

for blasting waste rock and ore. Potential pollutants involved in this step 

in the mining process include the fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic oils 

consumed by the rigs; fuels and oils typically contain such constituents as 

benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. 

Explosives (usually a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil) are used 

to break up the rock. Other explosives, including trinitrotoluene (TNT) 

and nitroglycerine, may also be used. 

Mucking is the process of removing broken ore from the mine, using a 

variety of loading and hauling equipment to transport ore to a mill for 

beneficiation. Depending on ore volume, trucks, rail cars, conveyers, and 

elevators may all be required to haul ore. Equipment involved in this 

step of the mining process uses hydraulic fluid (containing glycol ethers); 

batteries (containing sulfuric acid, lead, antimony, and arsenic); and 

lubricants and fuel (containing petroleum hydrocarbons). 

Beneficiation Methods 

Ore beneficiation is the processing of ores to regulate the size of the 

product, to remove unwanted constituents, or to improve the quality, 

purity, or grade of a desired product. Under regulations drafted 

pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR §261.4), 

beneficiation is restricted to the following activities: crushing; grinding; 

washing; dissolution; crystallization; filtration; sorting; sizing; drying; 

sintering; pelletizing, briquetting; calcining to remove water and/or 

carbon dioxide; roasting, autoclaving, and/or chlorination in preparation 

for leaching; gravity concentration; magnetic separation; electrostatic 

separation; flotation; ion exchange; solvent extraction; electrowinning; 

precipitation; amalgamation; and heap, dump, vat, tank, and in situ 

leaching. 

The most common beneficiation processes include gravity concentration 

(used only with placer gold deposits); milling and floating (used for base 

metal ores); leaching (used for tank and heap leaching); dump leaching 

(used for low-grade copper); and magnetic separation. Typical 

beneficiation steps include one or more of the following: milling; 

SIC Code 10 18 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

washing; filtration; sorting; sizing; magnetic separation; pressure 

oxidation; flotation; leaching; gravity concentration; and agglomeration 

(pelletizing, sintering, briquetting, or nodulizing). 

Milling extracted ore produces uniform-sized particles, using crushing 

and grinding processes. As many as three crushing steps may be 

required to reduce the ore to the desired particle size. Milled ore in the 

form of a slurry is then pumped to the next beneficiation stage. 

Magnetic separation is used to separate iron ores from less magnetic 

material, and can be classified as either high- or low-intensity (requiring 

as little as 1,000 gauss or as much as 20,000). Particle size and the solids 

content of the ore slurry determine which type of magnetic separator 

system is used. 

Flotation uses a chemical reagent to make one or a group of minerals 

adhere to air bubbles for collection. Chemical reagents include collectors, 

frothers, antifoams, activators, and depressants; the type of reagent used 

depends on the characteristics of a given ore. These flotation agents may 

contain sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, cyanide compounds, cresols, 

petroleum hydrocarbons, hydrochloric acids, copper compounds, and 

zinc fume or dust. 

Gravity concentration separates minerals based on differences in their 

gravity. The size of the particles being separated is important, thus sizes 

are kept uniform with classifiers (such as screens and hydrocyclones). 

Thickening/filtering removes most of the liquid from both slurried 

concentrates and mill tailings. Thickened tailings are discharged to a 

tailings impoundment; the liquid is usually recycled to a holding pond 

for reuse at the mill. Chemical flocculants, such as aluminum sulfate, 

lime, iron, calcium salts, and starches, may be added to increase the 

efficiency of the thickening process. 

Leaching is the process of extracting a soluble metallic compound from 

an ore by selectively dissolving it in a solvent such as water, sulfuric or 

hydrochloric acid, or cyanide solution. The desired metal is then 

removed from the "pregnant" leach solution by chemical precipitation or 

another chemical or electrochemical process. Leaching methods include 

"dump," heap," and "tank" operations. Heap leaching is widely used in 

the gold industry, and dump leaching in the copper industry. 

The following exhibit summarizes the various processes used within each 

mining sector, and the primary wastes associated with those processes. 

September 1995 19 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 9

Sector-Specific Processes and Wastes/Materials

Sector Mining Type Beneficiation/Processing Primary Wastes/Materials 

Gold-Silver • Surface 

• Underground 

• In Situ 

(experimental) 

• Cyanidation 

• Elution 

• Electrowinning/zinc precipitation 

• Milling 

• Base metal flotation 

• Smelting 

• Amalgamation (historic) 

• Mine water * 

• Overburden/waste rock 

• Spent process solutions 

• Tailings 

• Spent Ore 

Gold Placer • Surface • Gravity separation 

•Roughing, cleaning, fine separation 

• Some magnetic separation 

• Mine water* 

• Overburden/waste rock 

• Tailings 

Lead-Zinc • Underground 

(exclusively) 

• Milling 

• Flotation 

• Sintering 

• Smelting 

• Mine water* 

• Overburden/waste rock 

• Tailings 

• Slag 

Copper • Surface 

• Underground 

• In Situ 

• Milling 

• Flotation 

• Smelting 

• Acid leaching 

• SX/EW recovery 

• Iron precipitation/smelting 

• Mine water* 

• Overburden/waste rock 

• Tailings 

• Slag 

• Spent ore 

• Spent leach solutions 

Iron • Surface (almost 

exclusively) 

• Underground 

• Milling 

• Magnetic separation 

• Gravity separation 

• Flotation 

• Agglomeration 

• Blast furnace 

• Mine water* 

• Overburden/waste rock 

• Tailings 

• Slag 

* Note: Mine water is a waste if it is discharged to the environment via a point source 

Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Technical Document, Background for 

NEPA Reviewers: Non-Coal Mining Operations. 

Below is a more detailed discussion of the various beneficiation methods 

and processes used for each of the sectors presented in the table above. 

Iron Ore 

Typical beneficiation steps applied to iron ore include: milling, washing, 

sorting, sizing, magnetic separation, flotation, and agglomeration. 

Milling followed by magnetic separation is the most common 

beneficiation sequence used, according to the American Iron Ore 

Association. Flotation is primarily used to upgrade the concentrates 

generated from magnetic separation, using frothers, collectors, and 

antifoams. 

SIC Code 10 20 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Steel mills generally agglomerate or pelletize the iron ore concentrates to 

improve blast furnace operations that utilize iron ore. Pelletizing 

operations produce a moist pellet (often using clay as a binder), which is 

then hardened through heat treatment. Agglomeration generates byproducts in the form of particulates and gases, including compounds such 

as carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, chlorides, and fluorides. These 

emissions are usually treated using cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, 

and scrubbing equipment. These treatment technologies generate ironcontaining effluent, which is recycled into the operation. Agglomeration 

produces large volumes of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. 

Copper 

Copper is commonly extracted from surface, underground, and, 

increasingly, from in situ operations. According to the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, surface mining accounted for 83 percent of copper production in 

1992, with underground mining accounting for the remainder. In situ 

mining is the practice of percolating dilute sulfuric acid through ore to 

extract copper, by pumping copper-laden acid solutions to the surface for 

solvent extraction/electrowinning (SX/EW). This leaching operation uses 

both ammonium nitrate and sulfuric acid. 

Beneficiation of copper consists of crushing and grinding; washing; 

filtration; sorting and sizing; gravity concentration; flotation; roasting; 

autoclaving; chlorination; dump and in situ leaching; ion exchange; 

solvent extraction; electrowinning; and precipitation. The methods 

selected vary according to ore characteristics and economic factors; 

approximately half of copper beneficiation occurs through dump 

leaching, while a combination of solvent extraction/froth 

flotation/electrowinning is generally used for the other half. Often, more 

than one metal is the target of beneficiation activities (silver, for example, 

is often recovered with copper). 

According to EPA's Office of Solid Waste Technical Resource Document, 

copper is increasingly recovered by solution methods, including dump 

and in situ leaching. Because most copper ores are insoluble in water, 

chemical reactions are required to convert copper into a water-soluble 

form; copper is recovered from a leaching solution through precipitation 

or by SX/EW. Solution beneficiation methods account for approximately 

30 percent of domestic copper production; two-thirds of all domestic 

copper mines use some form of solution operations. Typical leaching 

agents used in solution beneficiation are hydrochloric and sulfuric acids. 

Microbial (or bacterial) leaching is used for low-grade sulfide ores, 

September 1995 21 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

however this type of leaching is much slower than standard acid leaching 

and its use is still being piloted. 

Dump leaching is a method of treating copper ore that has been extracted 

from a deposit, and refers to the leaching of oxide and low-grade sulfide 

ore on (typically) unlined surfaces. These operations involve the 

application of leaching solution, collection of pregnant leach solution 

(PLS), and the extraction of copper by SX/EW or cementation. Natural 

precipitation or mine water is generally used to leach low grade sulfide 

ore, while dilute sulfuric acid is commonly used to leach oxide ores. 

Copper dump leaches are massive, ranging in height from 20 to hundreds 

of feet, covering hundreds of acres, and containing millions of tons of ore. 

Dump leaching operations may take place over several years. 

The solvent extraction process is a two-stage method; in the first stage, 

low-grade, impure leach solutions containing copper, iron, and other 

base-metal ions are fed to the extraction stage mixer-settler. In the mixer, 

the aqueous solution contacts an active organic extractant in an organic 

diluent (usually kerosene), forming a copper-organic complex; impurities 

are left behind in the aqueous phase. The barren aqueous solution, called 

raffinate, is typically recirculated back to the leaching units while the 

loaded organic solution is transferred from the extraction section to the 

stripping section. In the second stage, the loaded organic solution is 

stripped with concentrated sulfuric acid solution to produce a clean, highgrade solution of copper for electrowinning. Electrowinning is the 

method used to recover copper from the electrolyte solution produced by 

solvent extraction. 

Exhibits 10 and 11 illustrate a typical dump leach operation and a 

representative solution-based process for recovering copper from ore. 

Variations exist in exact methods and processes used at each operation. 

SIC Code 10 22 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 10

Copper Dump Leach Operation

Copper 

Recovery 

Plant 

Pregnant 

Leachate 

Oxygen Depleted Air 

Impermeable Liner 

or Bedrock 

Temp. Inactive 

Area 

Leach Solution 

Percolating 

Downward 

Collection Pond 

and Dam 

Fresh Air 

Dump 

Fresh Air 

Leach 

Solution 

September 1995 23 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 11

Representative Hydrometallurgical Recovery of Copper

Solvent 

Extraction 

Aqueous/Organic 

Separation 

Loaded 

Solvent 

Barren 

Solvent 

Solvent 

Stripping 

Pregnant 

Electrolyte 

Spent 

Electrolyte 

Copper Cathodes 

Electrowinning 

Precipitation 

Conventional 

Processing 

High Grade Ore 

Surface Mine 

Low 

Grade 

Ore 

Solution 

Mining 

Operations 

Pregnant Liquor 

Barren 

Solution 

Barren 

Solution 

Water Cement Copper 

Slurry 

Decanting 

Drying 

Cement 

Copper 

Acid or 

Makeup Water 

Addition 

Recycle To Leach Operation 

Source: Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals, Volume 4, Copper, 

August 1994 U.S. EPA. 

Lead and Zinc 

Beneficiation of lead and zinc ores includes crushing and grinding; 

filtration; sizing; flotation; and sintering of concentrates. Flotation is the 

most common method for concentrating lead-zinc minerals. Ore may be 

treated with conditioners during or after milling to prepare the ore pulp 

for flotation. Common conditioners may include lime, soda ash, caustic 

soda, or sulfuric acid. The conditioned ore is then slurried in fresh or salt 

water with chemical reagents to beneficiate the ore. Several separate 

flotation steps may be needed to concentrate individual metal values from 

the ore. Reagents used in the flotation processes typically include such 

chemicals as sulfur dioxide, zinc sulfate, coal tar, copper sulfate, and 

sodium or calcium cyanide. 

SIC Code 10 24 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Lead and zinc mineral concentrates that will be smelted and refined may 

require sintering, typically performed at the smelter site. Sintering 

partially fuses the ore concentrates into an agglomerated material for 

processing, and involves several steps. First, ore concentrates are blended 

with moisture and then fired (sintered) and cooled. During cooling, the 

sinter is crushed, graded, and further crushed to produce a smaller sinter 

product. By-products of the roasting and sintering processes include 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Residues 

generated also include dust and primary lead process water. 

Gold and Silver 

Three principal techniques are used to process gold and silver ore: 

cyanide leaching, flotation of base metal ores followed by smelting, and 

gravity concentration. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, cyanide 

leaching generated 88 percent of all domestic lode gold in 1991, and 38 

percent of silver. Processing of base metal ores produced 11 percent of 

the gold; over half of the silver produced in 1991 was from smelting 

concentrates produced by flotation of silver and base metal ores. Gravity 

concentration is used primarily by gold and silver placer operations. 

Cyanide leaching is a relatively inexpensive method of treating gold ores 

and is the chief method in use. In this technique, sodium or potassium 

cyanide solution is either applied directly to ore on open heaps or is 

mixed with a fine ore slurry in tanks; heap leaching is generally used to 

recover gold from low-grade ore, while tank leaching is used for higher 

grade ore. 

Compared to tank leaching, heap leaching has several advantages, 

including simplicity of design, lower capital and operating costs, and 

shorter start-up times. Depending on the local topography, a heap or a 

valley fill method is typically employed. The size of heaps and valley fills 

can range from a few acres to several hundred. Heap leaching may 

involve any or all of the following steps: 

• Preparation of a pad with an impervious liner. Some liners may 

simply be compacted soils and clays, while others may be of more 

sophisticated design, incorporating clay liners, french drains, and 

multiple synthetic liners. 

• Placement of historic tailings, crushed ore, or other relatively 

uniform and pervious material on the uppermost liner to protect it 

from damage by heavy equipment or other circumstances. 

September 1995 25 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

• Crushing and/or agglomerating the ore. 

• Placing the ore on the pad(s). 

• Applying cyanide solution using drip, spray, or pond irrigation 

systems, with application rates generally between 0.5 and 1.0 

pounds of sodium cyanide per ton of solution. This is known as 

the barren solution because it contains little or no gold. 

• Collecting the solution via piping laid on the liner, ditches on the 

perimeter of the heap, or pipes/wells laid through the heap into 

sumps at the liner surface. The recovered pregnant solution, now 

laden with gold (and silver), may be stored in ponds or routed 

directly to tanks for gold recovery, or it may be reapplied to the 

heap for additional leaching. 

• Recovering the gold from the pregnant solution (typically 

containing between 1 and 3 ppm of gold). 

The leaching cycle can range from weeks to several months, depending on 

permeability, size of the pile, and ore characteristics. The average leach 

cycle is approximately three months. 

Recovery of gold from the pregnant solution is accomplished using 

carbon adsorption or, less commonly, by direct precipitation with zinc 

dust. These techniques may be used separately or in a series with carbon 

adsorption followed by zinc precipitation. Both methods separate the 

gold-cyanide complex from other remaining wastes. Carbon adsorption 

involves pumping the pregnant solution into a series of activated carbon 

columns, which collect gold from the cyanide leachate. The precious 

metals are then stripped from the carbon by elution with the use of a 

boiling caustic cyanide stripping solution, or similar solution. Gold in the 

pregnant eluate solution may be electrowon or zinc precipitated. 

Although carbon adsorption/electrowinning is the most common method 

of gold recovery domestically, zinc precipitation is the most widely used 

method for gold ore containing large amounts of silver. In zinc 

precipitation, pregnant solution (or the pregnant eluate stripped from 

carbon) is filtered and combined with metallic zinc dust resulting in a 

chemical reaction which generates a gold precipitate. The solution is then 

forced through a filter that removes the gold. 

SIC Code 10 26 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

The following exhibit illustrates a typical gold heap leach operation using 

zinc precipitation; variations exist in exact processes and methods used at 

each operation. 

Exhibit 12

Gold Heap Leaching Operation

Vacuum 

Tower 

Clarifier 

Zinc 

Feeder Sodium 

Cyanide Lime 

Zinc 

Filter 

Press 

Pregnant Pond 

Ore 

Heap 

Leaching Pad 

Barren Pond 

Refinery 

Solution Sprinklers 

Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

To prepare for tank leaching, ore is ground to expose the metal values to 

the cyanide. Finely ground ore is slurried with the leaching solution in 

tanks. The resulting gold-cyanide complex is then adsorbed on activated 

carbon. The pregnant carbon then undergoes elution, followed either by 

electrowinning or zinc precipitation, as described previously. The 

recovery efficiencies attained by tank leaching are significantly higher 

September 1995 27 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

than for heap leaching. The tank leaching process may occur over a series 

of days, rather than the weeks or months required in heap leaching. 

After heap leaching and rinsing, the spent ore becomes waste and is left 

as is or is deposited in disposal areas similar to those used for waste rock. 

Spent ore may contain wastewater from rinsing the ore, residual cyanide, 

metal-cyanide complexes, and small quantities of heavy metals. Tailings 

produced from tank leaching may contain arsenic, barium, chloride, 

nitrate, sodium, and sulfate. Cyanide residues may require destruction 

using alkaline chlorination, ozone, or hydrogen peroxide addition. 

Gravity concentration, a beneficiation method used mostly in placer 

mines, involves passing a slurry of ore and water over a series of riffles to 

catch heavier gold particles. Amalgamation, or wetting metallic gold 

with mercury to form an amalgam, is another recovery technique used in 

placer operations. Its high cost, inefficiency for large-scale mining 

operations, and environmental and safety considerations have greatly 

restricted amalgamation's previous widespread use. 

Chemical Usage 

The following exhibit lists the chemicals used in greatest volume in the 

metal mining processes for several of the main commodities. While 

volume does not necessarily correlate with potency, this data indicates 

which chemicals are present in greatest quantity, and to which chemicals 

mine workers may be most frequently exposed. Although it does not 

appear in the chart below, cyanide is also consumed in massive quantities 

by the gold industry. In 1990 alone, Dow Chemical supplied over 160 

million pounds of reagent-grade cyanide for use in gold mining, 

according to the Chicago Tribune (February 2, 1992, p.27). 

Exhibit 13 

Chemicals Used in High Volume 

Type of Mine Chemical Name Volume/Mass at Mine Site 

Iron Ore Acetylene 5,577,726 gallons 

Argon 15,892,577 gallons 

Diesel Fuel 3,417,487 gallons 

Nitrogen 9,398,026 gallons 

Lead/Zinc Acetylene 1,021,795 gallons 

Calcium Oxide 932,129 lbs. 

Diesel Fuel No. 2 1,640,271 gallons 

Propane 171,733 lbs.; 1,015,962 gallons 

Sulfur Dioxide* 1,843,080 lbs. 

SIC Code 10 28 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 13 (cont'd) 

Chemicals Used in High Volume 

Type of Mine Chemical Name Volume/Mass at Mine Site 

Copper Acetylene 10,909,868 gallons 

Calcium Oxide 512,620,243 lbs. 

Chlorine** 17,242,059 lbs.; 138,015 gallons 

Coal 2,375,684,593 lbs. 

Copper ore 

concentrate** 

24,000,000 lbs. 

Copper Slag 10,833,500 lbs. 

Diesel Fuel No. 2 47,301,433 gallons 

Limestone 154,280,000 lbs. 

Natural Gas 8.6 x 10^12 gallons 

Nitrogen 189,315,331 gallons 

Pyrites 38,400,000 lbs. 

Sulfuric Acid** 82,907,916 lbs.; 5,772 gallons 

Gold Acetylene 829,460 lbs.; 2,033,041 gallons 

Calcium Oxide 58,394,968 lbs. 

Chlorine** 66,090,022 lbs.; 165 gallons 

Diesel Fuel No. 2 13,425,408 gallons 

Propane 1,218 lbs.; 2,743,927 gallons 

Sulfuric Acid** 1,800,501 lbs. 

Source: NIOSH 1990/91 

* Proposed TRI chemical 

** Current TRI chemical 

III.B. Mining Process Pollution Outputs 

The extraction and beneficiation of metals produce significant amounts of 

waste and byproducts. Total waste produced can range from 10 percent 

of the total material mined to well over 99.99 percent. The volume of total 

waste can be enormous: in 1992, gold mining alone produced over 540 

million metric tons of waste. The following exhibit provides further 

detail on the volume of product and waste material generated from metal 

mineral mining. 

September 1995 29 SIC Code 10 
--

--

--

Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 14 

Volume of Waste Generated for Selected Metals 

Commodity Number 

of Mines 

Total Commodity 

Produced 

(1,000 mt) 

Tailings 

Generated 

(1,000 mt) 

Other Waste 

Handled 

(1,000 mt) 

Copper 50 1,765 337,733 393,332 

Gold +212 0.329 247,533 293,128 

Iron Ore 22 55,593 80,204 106,233 

Lead 23 398 6,361 

Silver 150 1.8 2,822 

Zinc 25 524 4,227 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries 1994 and Minerals Yearbook, Volume I: Metals and 

Minerals, 1992. 

The industry (including non-metallic minerals) is estimated to have 

generated 50 billion metric tons of waste through 1985, and currently 

generates approximately one billion metric tons annually. It is important 

to note, however, that virtually none of this annual production related to 

extraction and beneficiation is classified as RCRA hazardous waste. 

Exhibit 15 summarizes some of the potential effects of industrial mining 

on the environment. 

Exhibit 15

Steps in the Mining Process and Their Potential Environmental Impacts

Mining 

Process 

Process 

Wastes 

Air Emissions Other Waste Land, Habitat, Wildlife 

Site 

Preparation 

Erosion due to 

removal of 

vegetation 

Exhaust from 

construction 

vehicles; 

fugitive dust 

Run-off 

sediment 

Deforestation and habitat 

loss from road and site 

construction 

Blasting/ 

Excavation 

Acid Rock 

Drainage 

(ARD); erosion 

of sediments; 

petroleum 

wastes from 

trucks 

Dust blown to 

surrounding 

area; exhaust 

from heavy 

machinery 

Non-reused 

overburden; 

waste rock 

Loss of habitat; increase in 

erosion; loss of plant 

population from dust and 

water pollution; reduction 

in localized groundwater 

recharge resulting from 

increased runoff; loss of 

fish population from water 

pollution; nearby structural 

damages from vibration 

and settling; competition 

for land use 

Crushing/ 

Concentration 

Acid Rock 

Drainage 

(ARD) from 

tailings 

Dust created 

during 

transportation 

Additional 

waste rock; 

tailings 

SIC Code 10 30 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 15(cont'd)

Steps in the Mining Process and Their Potential Environmental Impacts

Mining 

Process 

Process 

Wastes 

Air Emissions Other Waste Land, Habitat, Wildlife 

Leaching ARD; water 

pollution from 

ruptures in 

pipes or ponds 

holding leach 

solution 

Sludges from 

neutralization of 

contaminated 

water 

Loss of plant, fish, and 

water fowl population 

from water pollution 

Source: Mining Support Package,. Draft, U.S. EPA, April 1994. 

Wastes 

Several wastes are created when metal ores are extracted from the earth. 

The first is overburden and waste rock, which is soil and rock removed in 

order to access an ore or mineral body. Overburden typically includes 

surface soils and vegetation, while waste rock also includes rock removed 

while sinking shafts, accessing or exploiting the ore body, and rock 

embedded within the ore or mineral body. 

Most overburden and waste rock are disposed of in piles near the mine 

site, although approximately nine percent is backfilled in previously 

excavated areas, and nearly four percent is used off-site for construction. 

Waste rock dumps are generally constructed on unlined terrain, with 

underlying soils stripped, graded, or compacted depending on 

engineering considerations. Drainage systems may be incorporated into 

dump foundations to prevent instability due to foundation failures from 

groundwater saturation, and may be constructed of gravel-filled trenches 

or gravel blankets. 

Tailings are a second type of common mining waste. Most beneficiation 

processes generate tailings, which contain a mixture of impurities, trace 

metals, and residue of chemicals used in the beneficiation process. 

Tailings usually leave the mill as a slurry consisting of 40 to 70 percent 

liquid mill effluent and 30 to 60 percent solids; liquids are commonly reused in milling processes. Most mine tailings are disposed in on-site 

impoundments. Design of the impoundment depends on natural 

topography, site conditions, and economic factors; generally it is 

economically advantageous to use natural depressions to contain tailings. 

Impoundments are designed to control the movement of fluids both 

vertically and horizontally. 

In some cases, tailings are dewatered or dried and disposed in piles; this 

minimizes seepage volumes and the amount of land required for an 

September 1995 31 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

impoundment. However, dry disposal methods can be prohibitively 

expensive due to additional equipment and energy costs. 

Slurried tailings are sometimes disposed of in underground mines as 

backfill to provide ground or wall support. This decreases the aboveground surface disturbance and can stabilize mined-out areas. 

Subaqueous tailings disposal, practiced primarily in Canada, is the 

placement of tailings below a permanent water surface such as a lake or 

ocean; it is used primarily to minimize the acid-generating potential of 

tailings by preventing sulfide ore from oxidizing. This disposal method is 

not currently practiced commercially in the United Stated. 

Water 

Water removed from a mine to gain or facilitate access to an ore body is 

known as mine water. Mine water can originate from precipitation, from 

flows into pits or underground workings, and/or from groundwater 

aquifers that are intercepted by the mine. Mine water is only a waste if it 

is discharged to the environment via a point source. Mine water can be a 

significant problem at many mines, and enormous quantities may have to 

be pumped continuously during operations. When a mine closes, 

removal of mine water generally ends. However, underground mines can 

then fill and mine water may be released through adits or fractures that 

reach the surface. Surface mines that extend below the water table fill to 

that level when pumping ceases, either forming a lake in the pit or 

inundating and saturating fill material. Pumped mine water is typically 

managed in on-site impoundments. Collected water may be allowed to 

infiltrate/evaporate, used as process water or for other on-site 

applications such as dust control, and/or discharged to surface water, 

subject to permit requirements. 

Acid drainage is a potentially severe pollution hazard associated with 

mining, and can be difficult to predict. It occurs when pyrite and other 

sulfide minerals, upon exposure to oxygen and water, oxidize to create 

ferrous ions and sulfuric acid. Catalyzed by bacteria, the ferrous ions 

react further with oxygen, producing hydrated iron oxide, known as 

"yellowboy." This combination of yellowboy and sulfuric acid may 

contaminate surrounding soil, groundwater, and surface water, 

producing water with a low pH. When this reaction occurs within a 

mine it is called Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). When it occurs in waste 

rock and tailings piles it is often known as Acid Rock Drainage (ARD), 

although AMD is the most widely used term for both. 

AMD is a significant problem at many abandoned mine sites: a 1993 

survey by the U.S. Forest Service (Acid Mine Drainage from Mines on 

SIC Code 10 32 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

National Forests, A Management Challenge) estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 

miles of domestic streams and rivers are impacted by acid drainage. Acid 

drainage can lower the pH of surrounding water, making it corrosive and 

unable to support many forms of aquatic life; vegetation growing along 

streams can also be affected. Mine water can also carry toxic, metalbearing sediment into streams, which can kill waterborne plant and 

animal species. In extreme cases, acid drainage can kill all living 

organisms in nearby streams. Humans may also increase disease risks by 

consuming drinking water and fish tissue with a heavy metal content. 

According to the 1994 Technical Document/ Background for NEPA Reviewers: 

Non-Coal Mining Operations, prepared by EPA's Office of Solid Waste 

(OSW), acid drainage can pose significant threats to surface and 

groundwater quality and resources during active mining and for decades 

after operations cease. Although mines that began operating after 1978 

are required to treat their effluent water, the need for water treatment 

may persist for decades after mining operations have ceased. Abandoned 

mines and refuse piles can produce acid damage for over 50 years. 

According to EPA's hardrock mining strategy framework, for example, 

"negative changes in geochemistry over time can occur when the 

materials' environment changes (e.g., going from a reducing environment 

to an oxidizing one) or buffering capacity is exceeded (such as when the 

total neutralizing capacity of a rock mass is exceeded by acid generation). 

When these conditions are present, a facility can close in full 

environmental compliance, only to have a severe problem show up 

decades later." Because remediating acid drainage is so damaging and 

costly, predictive tools, design performance, financial assurance, and 

monitoring have become increasingly important. 

Acid leaching operations are an additional source of water pollution. The 

leaching process itself resembles acid drainage, but it is conducted using 

high concentrations of acids to extract metals from ore. Since acid 

leaching produces large volumes of metal-bearing acid solutions, it is vital 

that leach dumps and associated extraction areas be designed to prevent 

releases. Most environmental damage associated with acid leaching is 

caused by leakage, spillage, or seepage of the leaching solution at various 

stages of the process. Potential problems include: seepage of acid 

solutions through soils and liners beneath leach piles; leakage from 

solution-holding ponds and transfer channels; spills from ruptured pipes 

and recovery equipment; pond overflow caused by excessive runoff; and 

ruptures of dams or liners in solution-holding ponds. Cyanide leaching 

solution processes carry a similar potential for damage as a result of 

leakages, spills, overflows, and ruptures. 

September 1995 33 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Solution ponds associated with leaching operations are potential sources 

of acid and metal releases to ground and surface water. Ponds associated 

with precious metal leaching operations and newer copper facilities are 

generally lined with synthetic materials (although liners are often 

susceptible to failure). At older copper sites, solution ponds may be 

unlined or lined only with natural materials. Leakage, run-off from 

precipitation, and the like, may cause contamination of ground and 

surface waters. 

Air 

Substantial air pollution can occur at mining sites during excavation and 

transportation. Fugitive dust may be a significant problem at some sites, 

depending on site conditions and management practices, and is created at 

many stages of the mining process. The inherent toxicity of the dust 

depends on the proximity of environmental receptors and type of ore 

being mined; high levels of arsenic, lead, and radionuclides in 

windblown dust tend to pose the greatest risk, according to EPA's 1995 

hardrock mining framework strategy. Sources of dust may be from road 

traffic in the mine pit and surrounding areas, rock crushers located in pits 

and in mills, and tailings ponds. 

Dust control methods aim to reduce amounts and concentrations of dust 

produced and to minimize human exposure to remaining dust. The most 

important element of dust control at underground mines is a properly 

designed ventilation system. Water sprays are also used during ore 

transportation and crushing, and can greatly reduce dust levels at the site. 

Dust suppressants, such as lignin sulfonates and magnesium chloride, can 

stabilize solid piles or tailing areas that might otherwise become airborne 

in windy conditions. After mine closure, revegetation or other stabilizing 

methods may be used for dust control. 

Exhaust fumes from diesel engines and blasting agents may also be 

serious hazards at underground mines. These exhausts produce carbon 

monoxide and nitrogen oxide gas, which collect in underground areas. 

Ventilation and monitoring are important steps taken to reduce the 

potential harm these fumes may cause workers. 

The following exhibit, derived from EPA's OSW 1994 Technical 

Document/Background for NEPA Reviewers: Non-Coal Mining Operations, 

describes the various measures mining operators may take to mitigate 

potential environmental impacts of waste products generated through 

different phases of the extraction and beneficiation processes. 

SIC Code 10 34 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 16

Potential Mine Waste Mitigation Measures

Mining Waste Product Mitigation Measures 

Extraction - Mine 

Workings 

• Evaporation and re-use of mine water in processing operations 

• Run-on and runoff control measures, such as berms and ditches 

• Neutralization/precipitation or other treatment practices prior to 

discharges 

• Clean-up of blasting residuals 

• Provide for post-closure mine water management 

• Monitor discharges and surface water quality 

• Site mine water containment units to minimize potential for 

surface water recharge 

Extraction - Waste Rock/ 

Overburden 

• Backfill into dry mine workings with waste rock 

• Maximize use of overburden in reclamation 

• Collect and monitor seepage, drainage, and runoff 

• Segregate and cover reactive waste rock with non-reactive 

materials where ARD is observed 

• Use non-reactive waste rock for on-site construction 

• Provide for adequate dump drainage to minimize potential for 

slope failure 

• Conduct baseline surface water monitoring; continue monitoring 

throughout operation and post-closure 

• Use run-on controls to minimize potential for infiltration 

Beneficiation - Tailings 

Impoundments 

• Design unit to contain maximum reasonable storm event 

• Consider natural and/or synthetic liners for units located in 

drainages; consider liners for any seepage/runoff collection 

sumps/ditches 

• Maximize the reclaim/reuse of tailings water 

• Limit mill reagents to least extent necessary 

• Provide adequate drainage of berms 

• Include secondary containment of tailings pipelines 

• Continue ARD testing throughout operations and closure 

• Collect and treat runoff/seepage from outer slopes of 

impoundment 

September 1995 35 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 16 (cont'd)

Potential Mine Waste Mitigation Measures

Mining Waste Product Mitigation Measures 

Beneficiation - Copper 

Dump Leach Operations 

and SX/EW Plants, Gold 

Heap Leaching 

• Design dump leach units to fully drain to collection areas 

• Ensure that collection, pregnant solution, and raffinate ponds are 

designed to contain up to the maximum reasonable storm event; 

line process ponds, heap leach pads, and conveyances 

• Install leachate detection and collection systems under ponds and 

heaps; construct seepage ponds downgradient of ponds, heaps, 

and dumps 

• Recycle process water 

• Lime neutralization or wetlands treatment of acid drainage 

• Provide secondary containment for solution pipes to minimize 

impacts from pipe failures/spills 

• Collect and treat drainage that occurs after closure, as necessary 

• Perform baseline groundwater monitoring and conduct 

groundwater quality monitoring during operations and postclosure; monitor post-closure discharges and downstream 

surface water quality 

• Detoxification of heaps, dumps, and any spent solutions to 

reduce cyanide, acidity, and metal loadings 

• Biological treatment for cyanides, nitrates, and heavy metals 

Beneficiation - Cyanide 

Leaching Operations 

• Where possible, do not locate leaching operations in or near 

drainages 

• Ensure that pregnant and barren ponds and ditches are designed 

to contain all solution flows and any runoff up to the maximum 

reasonable storm event 

• Use double liners and leak detection systems for all heaps, 

ponds, and drainage ditches 

• Test detoxified materials prior to disposal or closure to ensure 

cyanide levels are reduced 

• Collect and test seepage and runoff from spent ore piles; treat 

runoff/seepage as necessary; perform downstream water quality 

monitoring 

Beneficiation - In Situ 

Mining 

• Ensure proper production well installation/completion to avoid 

uncontrolled solution releases; provide for adequate well 

abandonment 

• Perform a detailed characterization of the site hydrogeology to 

guide design of recovery systems and determine potential for 

releases 

• Carefully monitor pumping pressures of solutions entering and 

leaving deposits to assure that solutions are not migrating into 

groundwater 

• Line surface collection systems and provide for leak detection; 

design collection systems to contain maximum volumes of 

leaching solutions and runoff/precipitation/snow melt 

SIC Code 10 36 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Because proposed mining activities may also impact aquatic resources, 

vegetation, and wildlife, EPA suggests the following potential mitigation 

measures for use at mine sites: 

Exhibit 17 

Ecosystem Mitigation Measures 

• Employ sediment retention structures to minimize amount of sediment 

migrating off-site 

• Employ spill prevention and control plans to minimize discharge of 

toxic/hazardous materials into water bodies 

• Site roads, facilities, and structures to minimize extent of physical disturbance 

• Avoid construction or new disturbance during critical life stages 

• Reduce the chance of cyanide poisoning of waterfowl and other wildlife by 

neutralizing cyanide in tailings ponds or by installing fences and netting to keep 

wildlife out of ponds 

• Minimize use of fences or other such obstacles in big game migration corridors; 

if fences are necessary, use tunnels, gates, or ramps to allow passage of these 

animals 

• Use "raptor proof" designs on power poles to prevent electrocution of raptors 

• Use buses to transport employees to and from mine from outer parking areas to 

minimize animals killed on mine-related roadways 

• Limit impacts from habitat fragmentation, minimize number of access roads, 

and close and restore roads no longer in use 

• Prohibit use of firearms on site to minimize poaching 

September 1995 37 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

IV. WASTE RELEASE PROFILE 

This section provides a general overview of the waste release activities 

and issues common to the metal mining industry. Unlike facilities 

covered by SIC codes 20 through 39 (manufacturing facilities), metal 

mining (extraction and beneficiation) facilities are not required by the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act to report to the 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). EPA is considering expanding TRI 

reporting requirements in the future, including participation of 

previously exempt industries such as metal mining. Because TRI 

reporting is not required in the metal mining industry, other sources of 

waste release data have been identified for this profile. 

IV.A. Waste Release Data for the Metal Mining Industry 

In 1994 EPA's OSW studied the unpermitted mining waste releases and 

environmental effects for nine States: Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, and South 

Dakota. Researchers examined State records to document waste release 

events for various types of mines throughout each State. These releases 

generally were not authorized under existing permits or regulations, and 

therefore should not be considered "accepted," "standard," or "typical" 

waste outputs of metal mining facilities. Rather, the data presented below 

offer a picture of representative unpermitted mining release events, and 

of the magnitude of these events in many Western States, where most 

metal mining facilities are located. It should be noted that most of these 

releases were properly mitigated by the associated mining companies. 

The release information presented below is categorized by mineral type, 

and is derived from the Mining Waste Releases and Environmental Effects 

Summaries reports prepared for OSW (see "References" for further 

information). Release data are presented in the units of measurement 

reported by each State and are therefore not standardized. Iron ore is not 

represented in the data because all U.S. iron ore mining occurs outside of 

the States selected for the survey. Note that the common types of waste 

released pose the greatest potential for polluting water sources, as stated 

elsewhere in this profile. Breaches of tailings impoundments, and 

subsequent spills of tailings, are not included in the data. 

Copper 

As evidenced in the following exhibit, the most prevalent waste release 

events related to copper mining involve leachate or process wastewater, 

SIC Code 10 38 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

reflecting the predominant extraction method for this ore. Acid Mine 

Drainage is a significant release associated with abandoned copper mines. 

Exhibit 18 

Copper-Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Cyprus Miami Mine, 

Claypool, AZ 

Copper leachate (amount unknown) 

Waste water (amount unknown) 

Non-potable water (37,000 gallons) 

(min 185, 000 gallons) 

1990 

1980, 85, 86 

1990 

1989 

Magma Copper, Miami Tailings 

Reprocessing Pit and Copper 

Cities Pit, Miami, AZ 

Pregnant leach (5000-10000 gallons) 

Slurry (15,600 gallons, 35,000 gallons, 

1000-2000 gallons, 

216,600 gallons) 

Recycle (1,320 gallons) 

Effluent (amount unknown) 

1984 

1989 

1991 

1991 

1989 

1991 

Oracle Ridge Mine, 

Pima County, AZ 

Copper concentrate (100 pounds) 

Process water (5000 gallons) 

1991 

1991 

ASARCO, Ray Mines, 

Gila County, AZ 

Diesel fuel (amount unknown) 

PCB, dielectric fluid (10 gallons) 

Sulfuric acid (20 tons) 

Gasoline (amount unknown) 

Acidic water ( amount unknown) 

Cooling tower blowdown (4340m^3/day) 

Sulfur dioxide (amount unknown) 

1989 

1989 

1989 

1989 

1985 

1985 

1988 

Sierrita Mine and Mill, Cyprus 

Minerals Corp., 

Pima County, AZ 

Process water (1 gallon/min) 

Pregnant leachate (amount unknown) 

1987 

extended 

Chino Mines, NM Heavy metals and sulfuric acid 

Acidic water (16,200 gallons) 

(2 million gallons) 

extended 

1986 

1988 

Tyearone Mine, NM TDS and sulfuric acid from tailings (4,270 acre 

feet per year) 

1978-89 

Montana Resources, Inc. 

Butte, MT 

Leach (amount unknown) 1986 

Bully Hill Mine, Redding, CA Acid mine drainage (30 gallons/min) since 1927 

Penn Mine, New Penne Mines, 

Inc., Campo Seco, CA 

Acid mine drainage 

Leaching of heavy metals (no known flow rate) 

since 1955 

Walker Mine, Calicopia Corp., 

Plumas County, CA 

Acid mine drainage 

Heavy metals (no known flow rate) 

since 1941 

Mammoth, Keystone & Stowell 

Mines, Shasta County, CA 

Acid mine drainage (100-275 gallons/min) extended time 

period 

Red Ledge Mine, NV See Gold and Silver 

Arimetco Facility, 

ArimetcoInc./Copper Tek Corp., 

Lyon County, NV 

Acid leach (amount unknown) 

Pregnant solution (2000 gallons) 

1989-91 

1990 

Nevada Moly Project, Cyprus 

Tononpah Mining, 

Tononpah, NV 

Process solution (amount unknown) 

Mercury (5.783 kg) 

1989 

1990 

Rio Tinto Mine, US Forest 

Service, Elko County, NV 

Acid (amount unknown) extended 

September 1995 39 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Lead and Zinc 

Because lead and zinc are often mined as a byproduct of other primary 

ores (copper or silver, for example), less data is available concerning 

releases specific to lead and zinc mining processes. Unless a mine 

operates exclusively as a lead/zinc operation, waste releases associated 

with these minerals are generally subsumed in the primary ore category 

and is included in the "Gold and Silver" data. 

Exhibit 19 

Lead and Zinc - Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Black Cloud Mine, ResASARCO Joint Venture, Lake 

County, CO 

Copper sulfate (2 gallons, 10 gallons, 50 gallons, 

amount unknown) 

Water and sediments (amount unknown) 

Acid leak (amount unknown) 

1987 

1987 

1983 

extended 

Taylor/Ward Project ,White 

Pine County, NV 

Lead only, see gold and silver 

Central Valley of CA Zinc only, see gold and silver 

Red Ledge Mine, ID Zinc only, see gold and silver 

Montana Tunnels Mine, MT See gold and silver 

Lucky Friday Mine, Mullan, 

ID 

See gold and silver 

Taylor/Ward Project, Alta 

Gold Co., White Pine 

County, NV 

Lead only, see gold and silver 

Gold and Silver 

As might be expected from the predominant beneficiation methods 

associated with gold and silver mining, release of leachate solutions 

(pregnant, process, barren, etc.) is by far the most common type of release 

for these ores, followed by release of cyanide, a common treatment 

solution. Release of cyanide is reported as presented in State files and is 

presumed to be released in solution form. Acid Mine Drainage is also 

problematic for gold and silver ore mining. 

SIC Code 10 40 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 20 Gold- and Silver -Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

American Girl Mine, American 

Girl Mining Co., Imperial 

County, CA 

Pregnant solution (1700 gallons) 

Process solution (4320-8640 gallons) 

Barren solution (5000 gallons) 

1987 

1988 

1989 

Carson Hill Gold Mine, 

Western Mining Co., Calaveras 

County, CA 

Pregnant leach solution (91,450 gallons) 1989 

Goldfields Operating Co., 

Mesquite, CA 

Leaching solution (amount unknown) 

(770, 50, 2520, 33, 26 gallons) 

Pregnant solution (4000 gallons) 

(52 gallons) 

1986 

1990 

1989 

1990 

Goldstripe Project, Plumas 

County, CA 

Leaching solution (amount unknown) 

Residue solution (amount unknown) 

1986 

1986-87 

Gray Eagle Mine, Noranda, 

Siskiyou County, CA 

Slurry (15 and 30 gallons/min) 

(1000-1500 gallons) 

(19,100 gallons) 

Untreated water (2-3 gallons/min for hours) 

1983 

1983 

1986 

1989 

Jamestown Mine, Sonora 

Mining Corp., Tuolumne 

County, CA 

Flotation solution (500 gallons) 

Reagents (2,700 gallons) 

Process water (1000 and 1500 gallons) 

Soda ash solution (3000 gallons) 

Supernatant (20 gallons/min) 

Concentrate (amount unknown, 10 tons, amount 

unknown) 

1987 

1987 

1989, 90 

1990 

1987 

1988, 90, 91 

Kanaka Creek Joint Venture, 

Alleghany, CA 

Effluent with arsenic (28 gpm) 1989 

McLaughlin Mine, Homestake 

Mining Co., Napa & Yolo 

Counties, CA 

Ore slurry (amount unknown) 1989 

Morning Star Mine, Vanderbilt 

Gold Corp., 

San Bernardino, CA 

Pregnant solution (2500 gallons) 1988 

Mt. Gaines Mine, Texas Hill 

Mining Co., Mariposa, CA 

Leaching solution (308,000 gallons) 1991 

Central Valley of CA, 

numerous closed mines 

Acid mine drainage 

Copper, zinc, cadmium (2 tons/year) 

Iron (22 tons/year) 

extended 

Picacho Mine, Chemgold Inc., 

Imperial County, CA 

Cyanide solution (min 1200 gallons) since 1987 

Snow Caps Mine, Sunshine 

Mining Co., Independence, CA 

Leaching solution (6000 gallons and amount unkn.) 1989 

1988 

Yellow Aster Mine, Rand 

Mining Co., Randsburg, CA 

Leaching solution (amount unknown) 1989 

Atlantic and Pacific Mine, 2900 

Development Corp., Madison 

County, MT 

Effluent (amount unknown) 1988 

September 1995 41 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 20 (cont'd)

Gold- and Silver-Related Waste Releases

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Basin Creek Mine, Lewis & 

Clark, Jefferson Counties, MT 

Acid mine drainage (amount unknown) 

Cyanide (amount unknown, 

amount unknown) 

extended 

1988 

1989 

Cable Creek Project, Deer 

Lodge County, MT 

Effluent from main sediment pond (amount 

unknown) 

1989 

Golden Sunlight Mine, Placer 

Amex, Inc., Whitehall, MT 

Pregnant solution (2000 gallons) 

Acidic water (amount unknown) 

Waste rock (amount unknown) 

1986 

1980 

1987 

Mineral Hill Mine/Jardine 

Joint Venture, Jardine, MT 

Seepage return solution (20-50 gallons) 

Cyanide (200 gallons) 

1990 

1990 

Landusky Mine, Zortman, MT Cyanide (few gallons/hour) 

Pregnant solution (amount unknown) 

1987 

1988 

Montana Tunnels Mine, 

Jefferson County, MT 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 1987, 88 

Pony Custom Gold Mill, 

Chicago Mining Corp., 

Pony, MT 

Slurry (20 gallons/day, 

max 15 gallons/day, 

amount unknown) 

1990 

1990 

1990 

Copperstone Project, 

Parker, AZ 

Leaching solution (2000 gallons, 5 gallons) 

Process solution(150-200 gallons) 

Process water (500 gallons) 

Slurry (300-400 gallons, 200 gallons) 

1987, 88 

1989 

1990 

1988 

1990, 92 

Portland Mine, 

Bullhead City, AZ 

Heap slide (amount unknown) 1986 

Bullger Basin Mine, 

Pennsylvania Mining Inc., 

Park City, CO 

Sediment (amount unknown) 

Oil (amount unknown) 

1986 

1986 

Cross Gold Mine, Hendricks 

Mining Co., Caribou, CO 

Mine water with cadmium, zinc, copper, lead 

(amount unknown) 

1985, 1990 

Jerry Johnson Group Cyanide 

Leach, El Paso County, CO 

Fresh ore (amount unknown) 1986 

Rubie Heap Leach, American 

Rare Minerals Inc., Teller 

County, CO 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 1985-92 

Gilt Edge Project, Brohm 

Mining Co., Deadwood, SD 

Cyanide (amount unknown, 

amount unknown) 

Process solution (300 gallons) 

Neutralization solution (1,329 gallons) 

Pregnant solution (47.05 gpd) 

Leaching solution (amount unknown) 

1991 

1991 

1990 

1990 

1989 

1988-90 

SIC Code 10 42 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 20 (cont'd) 

Gold and Silver- Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Annie Creek Mine, Wharf 

Resources, 

Lawrence County, SD 

Process water (1 gallons/hr, amount 

unknown) 

Leachate (100 gallons, 10,000 gallons, 

amount unknown) 

Cyanide (500 gallons, amount unknown, 

200 gallons, amount unknown, 1000 

gallons, amount unknown, 50-60 gallons, 

1317 gpd, 1288 gpd) 

Pregnant solution (5 gallons, amount 

unknown, amount unknown) 

Neutralization solution (amount unknown) 

Sedimentation pond (amount unknown) 

Diesel fuel (4000 gallons) 

Carbon slimes (amount unknown) 

Diesel free product (amount unknown) 

1986 

1989 

1988, 90 

1987 

1988, 84, 

84, 85, 90, 

90, 84, 

91, 91 

1984, 89 

1990 

1989 

1990-91 

1987 

1990 

1991 

Golden Reward Mine, Lead, 

SD 

Barren solution (500 gallons) 

Leach heap (300 gallons/cell) 

Surge pond solution (500 gpd) 

Cyanide (120 gallons, 125 gallons, 

1000-2000 gallons, 400 gallons, 50 gallons, 

29 gallons, 25-50 gallons, 25-50 gallons, 

200 gallons) 

Hydraulic oil (150 gallons) 

1990 

1990 

1990 

1989 

90, 90, 91 

1991 

1990 

Homestake Gold Mine, 

Lead, SD 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

Waste bench run-off (amount unknown) 

1988 

1988 

Richmond Hill Mine, Bond 

Gold Co., Lawrence County, 

SD 

Cyanide (200 gallons, 1350 gallons, 

150 gallons) 

Ore (40 tons) 

1989, 90 

1990 

1990 

Brewer Gold Mine, Westmont 

Mining Inc., Jefferson, 

Chesterfield Counties, SC 

Process water (amount unknown) 

Cyanide (1,800 gallons, 1683 gallons, 

10-12 million gallons) 

Partially leached ore (500 tons) 

Barren solution (750 gallons, 1000 gallons, 

1000 gallons, 150 gallons) 

Pregnant solution (500-600 gallons, 

8741 gallons) 

Emergency pond solution (300-2250 

gallons/day for 14 days) 

Ore (100 tons, amount unknown) 

Rinse solution (2250 gallons) 

Spent ore (125 ft

^3) 

1987 

1988, 89 

1990 

1987 

1990, 87 

1988 

1988 

1990 

1989 

1989, 90 

1989 

1989 

September 1995 43 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Luck Friday Mine, Hecla 

Mining Co., Mullan, ID 

Copper sulfate (100 gallons) 1988 

Marigold II Mine, Powell & 

Micro Gold II, Florence, ID 

Mercury (12 pounds.) 1983 

Princess Blue Ribbon Mine, 

Precious Metals Technology, 

Camas County, ID 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

Sediment (amount unknown) 

1988-90 

1990 

SIC Code 10 44 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 20 (cont'd) 

Gold and Silver- Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Red Ledge Mine, Alta Gold 

Co., Adams County, ID 

Acid mine drainage (.2 cfs) since 1973 

Stibnite Mine Project, Valley 

County, ID 

Diesel oil (900 gallons) 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

1989-90 

1989 

Yellow Jacket Mine, Glen 

Martin, Cobalt, ID 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 1983 

ACH-Dayton Project, 

American Eagle Resources, 

Lyon County, NV 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

Barren pond (amount unknown) 

1986 

1989 

Alligator Ridge Mine, USMX 

Inc., Ely, NV 

Cyanide (100,000-200,000 gallons, 

32,000-34,000 gallons, 

amount unknown) 

Pregnant solution (amount unknown) 

Process water (amount unknown, 

amount unknown) 

1983 

1986 

1986 

1985-89 

1990 

1990 

Aurora Gold Project, Aurora 

Partnership, Mineral 

County, NV 

Pregnant solution (4500 gallons) 1988 

Bald Mountain Mine, Placer 

Dome U.S. Inc., White Plain 

County, NV 

Barren solution (9,000 gallons, 

5,000 gallons) 

1989 

1991 

Big Springs Project, 

Independence Mining Co., 

Elko County, NV 

Tails liquor (23,000 gallons) 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

1989 

1990 

Borealis Gold Project, 

Tenneco Mining, Mineral 

County, NV 

Cyanide (2,000 gallons, 1,000 gallons) 1988 

Buckhorn Mine, Cominco 

American Inc., Eureka 

County, NV 

Process solution (3,000-5,000 gallons) 1990 

Candelaria Mine, Necro 

Metals Inc., Hawthorne, 

Esmeralda, and Mineral 

Counties, NV 

Pregnant solution (20,000-25,000 gallons) 1986 

Chimney Creek Project, Gold 

Fields Mining Corp., 

Humboldt County, NV 

Ammonium nitrate (4940 pounds.) 

Cyanide (1 gallons, 400 gallons, 360 gallons, 

80 L, 80 gallons) 

Descalant solution (10 gallons) 

Diesel fuel (125 gallons) 

Hydraulic oil (78 gallons) 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

Coeur Rochester, Love Lock, 

Pershing County, NV 

Barren solution (90,000-130,000 gallons) 

Pregnant solution (5,000-10,000 gallons) 

1987 

1987 

Cortez Gold Mines, Cortez 

Joint Venture, Cortez, NV 

Process solution (600 gallons) 1991 

September 1995 45 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Crofoot & Lewis Projects, 

Hycroft Resources & 

Development, Humboldt 

County, NV 

Pregnant solution (5000 gallons, 17,000 

gallons, 228,000 gallons, 

72,000 gallons) 

1990, 91 

1990 

1990 

Dee Gold Mine, Dee Gold 

Mining Co., Elko, NV 

Tailings reclaim water (142,968 

gallons) 

Cyanide (58 pounds, amount unknown) 

1986 

1990, 91 

SIC Code 10 46 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 20 (cont'd) 

Gold and Silver-Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Denton-Rawhide Project, 

Kennecott Rawhide Mining 

Co., Mineral County, NV 

Safety pond solution (167 gpd) 1990 

Easy Junior Mine, Alta Gold 

Co., White Pine County, NV 

Used oil (13 barrels, 3000 gallons) ???? 

Elder Creek Mine, Alta Gold 

Co., Lander County, NV 

Barren solution (4000 gallons, small amount, 

amount unknown) 

Pregnant solution (10,000 gallons) 

1989, 90 

1990 

1990 

Florida Canyon Mine, 

Pegasus Gold Corp., Pershing 

County, NV 

Barren solution (1200 gallons, 500 gallons) 

Pregnant solution (30 gallons) 

Leaching solution (112 gallons) 

1991 

1990 

1991 

Flowery Project, American 

Eagle Resources, 

Virginia City, NV 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

Leaching solution (160-290 ml/min, 

amount unknown) 

1988 

1991 

1991 

Gretchell Mine, First Miss 

Gold Inc., Winnemucca, NV 

Laboratory samples (8-16 gpd) 

Sulfuric acid (20 gallons) 

1989-90 

1991 

Gold Bar Project, Atlas Gold 

Mining Inc., Eureka County, 

NV 

Process fluid (amount unknown) 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 

1989 

1988 

Golden Butte Project, Alta 

Gold Co., White Pine County, 

NV 

Cyanide (75 gallons, 50-55 gallons, 

amount unknown) 

Pregnant solution (2.4 gpm, 6,500-

17,500 gallons, 1000 gallons) 

1990 

1990 

1989, 89 

1990 

Gooseberry Tailings Pond, 

Asamera Minerals Inc., Storey 

County, NV 

Barren solution (300 gallons) 1990 

Haywood Leach Facility, 

Oliver Hills Mining, Co., 

Lyon County, NV 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 1989 

Hog Ranch Mine, Western 

Mining Co., Valmy, NV 

Cyanide (250,000 gallons) 

Barren solution (3,500 gallons) 

1989 

1990 

Jerritt Canyon Project, Elko 

County, NV 

Cyanide (20,000 gallons) 1989 

Marigold Mine, Marigold 

Mining Co., Valmy, NV 

Leaching solution (amount unknown) 1991 

Mother Lode Project, US 

Nevada Gold Search Joint 

Venture, Beatty, NV 

Pregnant solution (228 gpd, 

640 gpd) 

Cyanide (.4 pounds) 

1989 

1990 

1990 

Nevada Mineral Processing 

Mill, Nevada Mineral 

Processing, Mineral County, 

NV 

Cyanide (amount unknown) 1991 

North Area Leach Project, 

Newmont Gold Co., Eureka 

County, NV 

Pregnant solution (2500 gallons) 1988 

September 1995 47 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Northumberland Mine, 

Western Minerals Corp., 

Nye County, NV 

Pregnant solution (555,000 gallons) 

Leaching solution (8-100 gallons, 

400 gallons) 

1983 

1989 

1985 

SIC Code 10 48 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 20 (cont'd) 

Gold and Silver-Related Waste Releases 

Site Waste Released 

Release 

Event Year 

Paradise Peak Project, FMC 

Gold Co., Nye County, NV 

Cyanide (275 pounds, 48 pounds) 1989, 91 

Rain Facility, Newmont 

Mining Co., Carlin, NV 

Acid drainage (3 gpm) 1990 

Santa Fe Project, Corona Gold 

Inc., Hawthorne, NV 

Leaching solution (5 gpm) 

Barren solution (amount unknown) 

Waste oil (amount unknown) 

1989 

1990 

1989 

Silver Peak Project, 

Homestead Minerals Corp., 

Esmeralda County, NV 

Cyanide (20-25 gallons, 

8,000-10,000 gallons) 

Leach thickener (15, 750 gallons) 

1988 

1986 

1991 

6-Mile Canyon Project, Gold 

Canyon Placer Inc., Dayton, 

NV 

Cyanide (amount unknown, 10 tons) 1986, 90 

Sleeper Mine, Amax Gold 

Inc. 

Reclaimed seepage pond solution (610 gallons) 

Barren solution (3,000 gallons, 2,000 gallons 

300 gallons, 3600 gallons, 

2000 gallons, 4000 gallons) 

Cyanide (149 pounds, 7.66 pounds, 

265 pounds) 

Pregnant solution (amount unknown) 

Process water (4100 gallons, 

6240 gallons, 45,000 gallons) 

Ore processing evaporation pond (1 gpm) 

Mill make-up water (3000 gallons) 

1989 

1989, 89 

1989, 89 

1990 

1989, 90 

1990 

1990 

1991 

1991, 90 

1990 

1990 

South Leach Project, 

Newmont GoldInc., Eureka 

County, NV 

Pregnant solution (amount unknown, 

amount unknown) 

1991 

1991 

Tonkin Springs Gold Mining 

Co., Eureka County, NV 

Pregnant solution (500,000 gallons) 

Leach seepage solution (amount unknown, 

amount unknown) 

1988 

1988 

1990 

USX Project, Ivanhoe Gold 

Co., Elko County, NV 

Leaching solution (150 gpd, 

amount unknown) 

1990 

1991 

Willard Project, Western 

States Mineral Corp., 

Pershing County, NV 

Pregnant solution (450 gallons) 

Barren solution (100 gallons, 600 gallons) 

Strip solution (450 gallons, 6000 gallons) 

1989 

1989, 90 

1989, 90 

Wind Mountain Project, 

Washoe, NV 

Cyanide (385,000 gallons, 1.7 pounds, 

300 gallons, 30 gallons) 

1989, 90 

1991 

September 1995 49 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

IV.B Other Data Sources 

AIRS Data 

The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) is an air pollution 

data delivery system managed by the Technical Support Division in 

EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, located in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. AIRS is a national repository of data 

related to air pollution monitoring and control. It contains a wide range 

of information related to stationary sources of air pollution, including the 

emissions of a number of air pollutants which may be of concern within a 

particular industry. States are the primary suppliers of data to AIRS. 

Data are used to support monitoring, planning, tracking, and enforcement 

related to implementation of the Clean Air Act. AIRS users include State 

environmental agency staff, EPA staff, the scientific community, other 

countries, and the general public. 

Exhibit 21 summarizes AIRS annual releases of carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10), 

total particulates (PT), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). This information is compared across industry 

sectors. 

Exhibit 22 lists the air emissions of particular chemicals reported for the 

metal mining industry in the Air Facility Subsystem (AFS) of AIRS, 

presented in a "SIC Code Profile, Metal Mining," prepared by EPA's 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in April, 1992. The release data 

are expressed in pounds released per year, per facility. Most of the 

chemicals released in the highest quantities and those released by the 

largest number of facilities are metals. In total, 17,654,112 pounds of the 

chemicals listed in Exhibit 22 were released by the mines covered. 

SIC Code 10 50 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 21

Pollutant Releases (Short Tons/Years)

Industry CO NO2 PM10 PT SO2 VOC 

U.S. Total 97,208,000 23,402,000 45,489,000 7,836,000 21,888,000 23,312,000 

Metal Mining 5,391 28,583 39,359 140,052 84,222 1,283 

Nonmetal Mining 4,525 28,804 59,305 167,948 24,129 1,736 

Lumber and Wood 

Products 

123,756 42,658 14,135 63,761 9,149 41,423 

Wood Furniture and 

Fixtures 

2,069 2,981 2,165 3,178 1,606 59,426 

Pulp and Paper 624,291 394,448 35,579 113,571 341,002 96,875 

Printing 8,463 4,915 399 1,031 1,728 101,537 

Inorganic Chemicals 166,147 108,575 4,107 39,082 182,189 52,091 

Organic Chemicals 146,947 236,826 26,493 44,860 132,459 201,888 

Petroleum Refining 419,311 380,641 18,787 36,877 648,153 309,058 

Rubber and Misc. Plastic 

Products 

2,090 11,914 2,407 5,355 29,364 140,741 

Stone, Clay, Glass, and 

Concrete 

58,043 338,482 74,623 171,853 339,216 30,262 

Iron and Steel 1,518,642 138,985 42,368 83,017 238,268 82,292 

Nonferrous Metals 448,758 55,658 20,074 22,490 373,007 27,375 

Fabricated Metals 3,851 16,424 1,185 3,136 4,019 102,186 

Electronics 367 1,129 207 293 453 4,854 

Motor Vehicles, Bodies, 

Parts, and Accessories 

35,303 23,725 2,406 12,853 25,462 101,275 

Dry Cleaning 101 179 3 28 152 7,310 

Source U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, AIRS Database, May 1995. 

September 1995 51 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 22

AIRS Releases

Chemical Facilities Med. Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Total Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Acetaldehyde 3 200 546 

Acetone 8 147 19,366 

Acrolein 3 136 381 

Acrylic acid 2 72 143 

Acrylonitrile 2 92 185 

Aniline 2 126 251 

Antimony 38 1,568 1,499,719 

Arsenic 60 636 2,189,992 

Barium 62 77 54,284 

Benzene 15 226 9,929 

Benzyl chloride 2 67 134 

Beryllium 2 1 3 

Biphenyl 2 2 3 

1,3-Butadiene 4 108 380 

Butyl acrylate 2 68 137 

sec-Butyl alcohol 2 54 108 

tert-Butyl alcohol 2 67 134 

Butyraldehyde 3 72 212 

Cadmium 60 166 613,554 

Carbon disulfide 2 14 29 

Chlorine 64 3,450 3,197,210 

Chlorobenzene 2 113 226 

Chloroethane 2 46 92 

Chloroform 2 81 162 

Chloroprene 2 54 108 

Chromium 64 292 227,682 

Cobalt 56 119 93,723 

Copper 63 1,625 1,887,139 

Creosote 2 59 118 

Cresol (mixed isomers) 2 60 121 

Cumene 2 60 121 

Cyclohexane 13 34 1,032 

1,2-Dibromoethane 2 67 134 

Dibutyl phthalate 2 6 13 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2 64 127 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2 115 229 

Dichlorodifluoromethane CFC1 2 56 111 

1,2-Dichoroethane 2 92 185 

Dichloromethane 2 119 239 

SIC Code 10 52 September 1995
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 22 (cont’d) 

AIRS Releases 

Chemical Facilities Med. Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Total Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 2 2 3 

Dimethyl phthalate 2 10 19 

Epichlorohydrin 2 67 134 

2-Ethoxyethanol 2 57 115 

Ethyl acrylate 2 80 159 

Ethylbenzene 5 52 333 

Ethylene 9 192 7,160 

Ethylene glycol 2 59 118 

Ethylene oxide 2 60 121 

Formaldehyde 154 256 36,290 

Formic acid 2 67 134 

Freon 2 64 127 

Glycol Ethers 2 70 140 

HCFC-22 2 25 51 

Hydrogen sulfide 1 3 3 

Isobutyraldehyde 2 67 134 

Lead 64 2,218 4,065,664 

Maleic anhydride 2 11 22 

Manganese 64 451 572,225 

Mercury 36 14 8,365 

Methanol 2 223 446 

2-Methoxyethanol 2 62 124 

Methyl acrylate 2 60 121 

Methyl ethyl ketone 2 194 388 

Methyl isobutyl ketone 2 89 178 

Methyl methacrylate 2 73 146 

Methylene bromide 2 5 10 

Monochloropentafluoroethane 2 6 

Naphthalene 7 48 1,716 

n-Butyl alcohol 2 110 220 

Nickel 62 164 132,525 

Nitrobenzene 2 53 105 

Phenol 3 35 154 

Phosphorus (yellow or white) 62 190 142,058 

Phthalic anhydride 2 32 64 

Propionaldehyde 3 57 191 

Propylene oxide 2 80 159 

3 

September 1995 53 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 22 (cont'd) 

AIRS Releases 

Chemical Facilities Med. Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Total Releases 

(lbs/Year/ 

Facility) 

Propylene (Propene) 9 201 3,067 

Selenium 56 78 54,673 

Silver 35 59 41,069 

Styrene 3 96 405 

Tetrachloroethylene 2 111 223 

Toluene 15 125 3,323 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2 68 137 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2 56 111 

Trichloroethylene 2 68 137 

Trichlorofluoromethane CFC11 2 97 194 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2 2 3 

Vinyl acetate 2 88 175 

Vinyl chloride 2 67 134 

m-Xylene 2 91 181 

o-Xylene 5 47 252 

p-Xylene 2 64 127 

Xylene (mixed isomers) 2 111 223 

Zinc (fume or dust) 64 1,694 2,781,488 

National Priorities List 

Presented in Exhibit 23 is a table of mining sites listed on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) for environmental remediation. These sites have 

been involved primarily in the extraction and beneficiation of those metal 

ores covered in this profile and represent only a small fraction of the total 

number of sites on the NPL, currently numbering over 1,200. The total 

number of mining-related sites on the NPL is far greater, and includes 

smelting and other metal processing facilities, and a wider range of metal 

and non-metal mining facilities. 

SIC Code 10 54 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 23

Selected NPL Mining Sites

Site Name/Location Type of Mine Contaminant of Concern Environmental Damage 

Silver Bow Creek, 

Butte, MT 

Copper Arsenic, heavy metals Contaminated surface soils 

and sediments; contamination 

of primary drinking water 

sources 

Clear Creek/Central City 

Site, Clear Creek, CO 

Gold, silver, 

copper, lead, 

zinc, 

molybdenum 

AMD, aluminum, arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, nickel, silver, 

copper, fluoride, zinc 

Surface water contamination 

from AMD; contaminated 

sediments and groundwater; 

potential air-borne 

contamination from tailings 

Silver Mountain Mine, 

Loomis, WA 

Silver, gold, 

copper 

Arsenic, antimony, cyanide Soil, groundwater, and 

surface water contamination 

Summitville Mine, South 

Fork, CO 

Gold, copper, 

silver 

AMD, heavy metals, 

cyanide 

Surface water contamination; 

fishkills 

Whitewood Creek, 

Lawrence/Meade/Butte 

Co's., SD 

Gold Arsenic, cadmium, copper, 

manganese, other metals 

Contaminated alluvial 

groundwater, surface water, 

surface soils, and vegetation 

Cherokee County-Galena 

Subsite, Cherokee Co., KS 

Lead and Zinc Cadmium, lead, zinc, AMD Ground and surface water 

contamination; contaminated 

soils 

Oronogo-Duenweg 

Mining Belt, Jasper Co., 

MO 

Lead and Zinc Cadmium, lead, zinc Contaminated ground and 

surface water, and sediments; 

contamination of primary 

drinking water supplies 

Tar Creek, Ottawa Co., 

OK/Cherokee Co., KS 

Lead and Zinc AMD, heavy metals Contaminated aquifer serving 

approx. 21,000 residents; 

acute surface water 

contamination; high mortality 

rate of most surface water 

biota 

California Gulch, 

Leadville, CO 

Gold, silver, 

lead, zinc, 

copper 

AMD, cadmium, copper, 

lead, zinc 

Contaminated surface water, 

groundwater, and sediments 

Eagle Mine, Gilman, CO Zinc, copper, 

silver 

AMD, antimony, arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, manganese, 

nickel, silver, thallium, 

uranium, zinc 

Contaminated surface water 

and groundwater; 

contaminated soils and 

sediments 

Iron Mountain Mine, 

Redding, CA 

Gold, silver, 

copper, zinc, 

pyrite 

AMD, cadmium, copper, 

zinc 

Contamination of surface 

water; elimination of aquatic 

life; fishkills 

Richardson Flat Tailings Multiple Arsenic, cadmium, copper, 

lead, selenium, zinc 

Surface water contamination; 

possible contamination of 

wetlands 

Smuggler Mountain, 

Pitkin County, CO 

Silver, lead, 

zinc 

Lead, cadmium, zinc, 

arsenic, barium, copper, 

manganese, silver, mercury 

Soil contamination; potential 

air, ground and surface water 

contamination 

September 1995 55 SIC Code 10
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

V. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES 

As a national policy, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) encourage the 

reduction in volume, quantity, and toxicity of waste. While RCRA 

focuses primarily on the reduction in volume and/or toxicity of 

hazardous waste, the PPA encourages maximum possible elimination of 

all waste through source reduction. 

In the PPA, Congress defined source reduction as any practice that 

reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or 

contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise releases into the 

environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, 

or disposal; and reduces the hazards to public health and the environment 

associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants. Source reduction includes equipment or technology 

modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or 

redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in 

housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. 

The best way to reduce pollution is to prevent it in the first place. Some 

companies have creatively implemented pollution prevention techniques 

that improve efficiency and increase profits while at the same time 

minimizing environmental impacts. This can be done in many ways, such 

as reducing material inputs, re-engineering processes to reuse byproducts, improving management practices, employee awareness and 

education, and employing substitutions for toxic chemicals. 

In order to encourage these approaches, this section provides both general 

and company-specific descriptions of some pollution prevention advances 

that have been implemented within the metal mining industry. While the 

list is not exhaustive, it does provide core information that can be used as 

a starting point for facilities interested in beginning their own pollution 

prevention projects. When possible, this section provides information 

from real activities that can or are being implemented by this sector. This 

section provides summary information from activities that may be, or are 

being implemented by this sector. When possible, information is 

provided that gives the context in which the techniques can be effectively 

used. Please note that the activities described in this section do not 

necessarily apply to all facilities that fall within this sector. Facilityspecific conditions must be carefully considered when pollution 

prevention options are evaluated, and the full impacts of the change must 

examine how each option affects, air, land, and water pollutant releases. 

SIC Code 10 56 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Much of the information presented is drawn from EPA's OSW report on 

Innovative Methods of Managing Environmental Releases at Mine sites, April 

1994. 

V.A. Controlling and Mitigating Mining Wastes 

Mining Water Control 

As discussed previously, acid drainage is an environmental concern at 

many mining sites. There are no widely-applicable technologies to stop a 

fully-developed acid drainage situation. This makes it particularly 

important to prevent acid drainage before it starts. Prevention of acid 

drainage requires control of oxygen, water, bacteria, and sulfide minerals. 

Within a mine, oxygen levels cannot be controlled, so AMD prevention 

measures focus on control of the other three parameters, particularly on 

water flows. 

The primary strategy for minimizing acid drainage focuses on water 

control. A comprehensive water control strategy works both to limit 

contact between water and exposed mine rock and to control the flow of 

water that has been contaminated by mineral-bearing rock. Development 

of systems for water control at mine sites requires consideration of rainfall 

runoff as well as process water used or produced when mine dewatering 

is required in excavation, concentration, and leaching. Although the type 

of water controls used varies widely according to topography, rock type, 

and climactic conditions, efforts are typically aimed at directing water 

flows to containment ponds for treatment or evaporation. The five 

principal technologies used to control water flow at mine sites are: 

diversion systems, containment ponds, groundwater pumping systems, 

subsurface drainage systems, and subsurface barriers. 

Surface water is controlled by diversion systems, made up primarily of 

drainage ditches. Some drainage ditches channel water away from 

mining sites before runoff reaches exposed minerals, while others direct 

contaminated water into holding ponds for evaporation or treatment. The 

ponds used to hold leaching solutions are more sophisticated than 

holding ponds for mine runoff because of environmental concerns and the 

valuable nature of the metal-rich solutions in leaching holding ponds. 

Groundwater sources can also be protected with water control systems. 

Groundwater pumping systems are used to control or reduce 

underground seepage of contaminated water from collection ponds and 

waste piles. Wells are drilled where underground water movement is 

September 1995 57 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

detected, and pumps are then used to move the water out of the ground 

to holding ponds and/or to a treatment plant. Subsurface drainage 

systems are also used to control seepage in mining areas. These systems 

use a drain channel and wells to collect contaminated water that has 

seeped underground and move it to a treatment plant. Subsurface 

barriers are used to divert groundwater away from mining operations. 

The most common forms are slurry walls and grouting. Slurry walls are 

made of low-permeability materials that are sunk into the ground around 

mining operations. 

Grouting involves the injection of a liquid solution, which then solidifies, 

into rock crevices and joints to reduce water flow. The EPA and DOEsponsored Mining Waste Technology Program (MWTP) in Butte, 

Montana is conducting a clay-based grouting demonstration project at the 

Mike Horse Mine in Lincoln. Researchers have found that clay-based 

grouts retain their plasticity throughout stabilization, unlike cementbased grouts; clay grouts are not easily eroded; and clay grouts generally 

penetrate mine fractures better than cement-based grouts. Through this 

project, researchers hope to use a clay grout, developed specifically for the 

site's geological characteristics, to isolate specific mineralized structures 

within the mine. This grouting barrier will lower the groundwater flow 

entering the mine, reducing contact with the mine's sulfide minerals. 

Consequently, acid generation will decrease and lower quantities of acid 

and dissolved metals will be delivered to area surface water sources. 

MWTP is also demonstrating a sulfate-reducing bacteria project at the 

nearby abandoned Lilly/Orphan Boy mine, where acid production is a 

continuing problem. This technology uses bacteria to reduce 

contamination in mine wastewater by reducing sulfates to hydrogen 

sulfide. This hydrogen sulfide reacts with dissolved metals, resulting in 

the formation of insoluble metal sulfides. Finally, the sulfate reduction 

produces bicarbonate, which increases the pH of the water. This 

biotechnology also acts as a source control by slowing or reversing the 

process of acid generation. Because biological sulfate reduction is an 

anaerobic process, it reduces the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the mine 

water and increases the pH, thereby slowing or stopping the production 

of acid. Final reporting on this demonstration project is expected after the 

three-year trial ends in late 1997. 

Waste Rock Disposal Area and Tailing Impoundment Design 

In addition to controlling water flow, acid drainage minimization also 

requires that waste rock disposal areas and tailings impoundments be 

properly designed and sited. When selecting a site for waste disposal 

SIC Code 10 58 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

areas, mine operators should consider the topography of the site and the 

proximity to groundwater, streams, and rivers. Waste rock can be sloped 

to minimize uncontrolled runoff and to control the velocity of water that 

flows into containment ponds. 

Wetlands 

One promising technique for treating AMD is the use of constructed 

wetlands. There are currently approximately 400 such systems in 

operation, mostly as a result of U.S. Bureau of Mines research programs. 

Constructed wetlands systems have been particularly effective at 

removing iron from acid mine water. These wetlands rely on bacterial 

sulfate reduction (the opposite of bacterial oxidation, the formation of 

acid) to remove iron and other minerals and to reduce the acidity of 

contaminated water. The iron is precipitated out, deposited in the 

substrate, and eventually accumulated by plants. Although a few 

wetland systems have been built to treat large flows of acid mine 

drainage, the technique seems best suited to handling seeps and small 

flows. Their effectiveness is also limited when there are large seasonal 

changes in flow rates, or high concentrations of nonferrous metals, as 

occurs in some metal mining areas. 

The Dunka mine site, an iron ore mine operated by LTV Steel Mining 

Company (LTV SMCo) is currently using wetlands treatment methods to 

mitigate an existing seepage problem. The facility has experienced 

seepage from a specific type of acid generating waste rock found at the 

site. Seepage from the waste rock piles has flowed to a creek, which 

enters Birch Lake; a previous study estimated 50 million gallons a year of 

discharge. Studies conducted at the mine's active wetlands site indicate 

30 percent removal of nickel and 100 percent removal of copper by peat 

sequestration. Overall mass analyses indicate more than 80 percent of 

copper entering the wetlands were retained. Other technologies currently 

being used at the site include pile capping to reduce infiltration; diverting 

the creek away from the waste rock stockpiles; and a lime neutralization 

treatment system for removing metals from collected waste rock seepage. 

Pump and Treat 

The conventional approach to treating contaminated ground or surface 

water produced through acid drainage involves an expensive, multi-step 

process that pumps polluted water to a treatment facility, neutralizes the 

contaminants in the water, and turns these neutralized wastes into sludge 

for disposal. The first step in the process, equalization, involves pumping 

polluted water into a holding basin. The holding basin may be the 

September 1995 59 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

containment pond at the base of the waste rock disposal area or tailings 

impoundment, or may be an additional basin constructed for this 

purpose. A steady "equalized" flow of water is then pumped out of the 

holding basin to a treatment plant for neutralization. Lime is commonly 

added to the water in the treatment plant to neutralize the acid. The next 

step, aeration, involves moving the treated water to another basin where 

it is exposed to air. The metals precipitate typically as hydroxides, 

forming a gelatinous sludge. The floc then settles to the bottom of the 

pond as sediment. This sediment contains most of the contaminants that 

had previously been mixed with the water, as well as unreacted 

neutralizing reagents. The accumulated sludge at the bottom of the basin 

can then be removed for disposal. 

MWTP is exploring a variety of options for improving mine wastewater 

treatment technologies. Among its projects is an effort to use 

photoassisted electron transfer to remove toxic substances, specifically 

nitrate and cyanide, from wastewater. Researchers are also developing 

new treatment technologies involving chemical precipitation, with or 

without aeration, to neutralize acid waters and precipitate contaminants 

from a nearby abandoned open-pit mine that contains over 20 billion 

gallons of wastewater. Final study results for this project will be 

published in early 1996. 

Sludge Disposal 

Sludge disposal is the most expensive and difficult part of acid drainage 

treatment. The easiest method for final disposal is to pump the sludge 

into abandoned mines. The long-term environmental impact of this 

method is undetermined. While the mine is still active, the sludge may be 

placed in a basin next to the sediment pond. The sludge is left in this 

second pond until evaporation takes place and the sludge dries. The 

sludge can then be transferred to an appropriate location for long-term 

storage or disposal. 

MWTP is currently completing a research project on sludge stabilization. 

The research team, led by faculty at University of Montana's Montana 

Tech, is studying the properties and stability of sludges generated 

through water treatment techniques for acid-polluted water from sulfide 

mines. Researchers are analyzing the chemical properties of sludges, and 

will propose various storage environments to optimize long-term sludge 

stability. 

Mine Planning 

SIC Code 10 60 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

One way to mitigate the problems caused by acid water draining from 

underground and surface mines is to carefully consider a site's 

topography, geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and the like in 

determining approaches to ore production and the siting of such process 

wastes as waste rock piles, tailings impoundments, and solution ponds. 

Proper planning of operations can greatly reduce such environmental 

hazards as potential releases to ground and surface waters and AMD 

production. 

Acid Zone Isolation 

An alternative to removing acid producing zones, which may be neither 

feasible nor economical, is to isolate them by using a mining sequence 

that avoids extracting material that will create AMD-producing wastes 

and exposing "hot" zones. This is accomplished by leaving rock barriers 

between mining operations and the potential acid-producing zone, and, if 

necessary, grouting or otherwise sealing off the flow of water into the 

"hot" zone. 

V.B. Innovative Waste Management Practices 

New techniques for recovering metal resources that may have less of an 

environmental impact include in-situ leaching, use of robotic systems, and 

underground leaching. These techniques could reduce surface 

disturbances and eliminate waste piles and impoundments, but may have 

serious impacts on groundwater. Alternatively, existing waste piles may 

be remined to meet environmental standards, if economically feasible. 

Another possibility is the development of techniques to extract metals 

more economically from common rocks. Waste from these common rocks 

may not contain the hazardous components common in the sulfide ore 

that are the source of many metals. Industry groups suggest, however, 

that metals in common rock may not be present in recoverable form and 

amounts. 

The Bureau of Mines has developed a froth flotation process to remove 

heavy-metal-bearing minerals from tailings. This process recovers not 

only the desired mineral components of the tailings, but also the acidforming minerals, and renders the wastes less susceptible to AMD. A 

combination of conventional and non-conventional flotation reagents 

lowers the metal content of tailings by as much as 95 percent. Two other 

possibilities for dealing with wastes created during processing is to 

concentrate potential contaminants, which would then require a smaller 

September 1995 61 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

disposal area, or to treat contaminants with a chemical or physical 

coating, which reduces the rate of release. 

Following is an exhibit that describes some of the waste 

minimization/prevention opportunities for different steps of the mining 

process. 

SIC Code 10 62 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 24 

Waste Minimization and Prevention Opportunities 

Activity Waste Waste Minimization Options 

Flotation Sodium cyanide 

Zinc sulfate, 

sodium cyanide 

Ammonia 

• Non-toxic reagents may be substituted for cyanide 

compounds in copper beneficiation; sodium sulfide/ 

bisulfide may be used as alternatives to sodium cyanide 

• Flotation process control equipment w/sensors, computing 

elements, and control units may be installed to reduce 

amount of flotation reagents necessary and to improve 

separation of waste from product 

• Alkalinity in the beneficiation circuits may be maintained by 

reagents less toxic than ammonia, such as lime 

Tailings 

Management 

Sulfuric acid 

Water (and 

associated 

pollutants) 

• Pyrites could be segregated from other gangue material 

before discharge to tailings impoundments to reduce the 

potential for sulfuric acid formation after closure 

• Thin Layer (TL) process for copper reduces water use by as 

much as 75 percent as the amount needed for agitation 

leaching; also reduces fugitive dust generation 

• Up to 90 percent of metals and cyanide can be removed 

through use of ion exchange, heavy metal removal systems 

and cyanide destruction systems, precipitation of heavy 

metals using lime, oxidization of cyanide using sodium 

hypochlorite, then electrolysis, and filtration through a high 

flow rate sand filter 

• Water may be removed from the tailings slurry for reuse in 

the milling circuit 

Leaching Trace metals • A Pachuca reactor reduces the elution time for recovering 

cobalt from spent copper leach solutions 

• Substitute thiourea, thiosulfate, malononitriles, bromine, 

and chlorine compounds for cyanide under certain 

conditions 

Metal Parts 

Cleaning 

Miscellaneous 

chlorinated 

solvents 

• Switching to semi-aqueous cleaners such as terpene and 

hydrocarbon cleaners or aqueous cleaners which are waterbased cleaning solutions would reduce or eliminate solvent 

emission and liquid waste generation 

Blasting Ammonium 

nitrate 

• Maintain storage containers properly 

• Use used oil instead of new oil in the preparation of ANFO 

(if allowed by MSHA) 

Crushing Zinc liners • Zinc mantle liner pieces in the secondary crushers may be 

recycled 

Source: Draft Report to U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, September 1994. 

September 1995 63 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Metals Recovery 

In cooperation with domestic steel makers, the Bureau of Mines has 

developed an innovative, efficient, and cost-effective recycling process to 

treat the estimated 1.8 million annual tons of iron-rich dusts and sludges 

that are contaminated with heavy metals, by mixing various dusts and 

wastes to produce recyclable metal pellets. The process has been proven 

on a 1,000 lb/hour pilot scale, and full scale industrial tests are being 

scheduled. In addition, the Bureau of Mines has worked with DOE and 

industry representatives to develop a 1,000 lb/hour electric arc furnace 

suitable for demonstrating the vitrification of mineral wastes and/or the 

recovery of heavy-metal-rich fume products for recycling. If the 

contaminated mineral wastes cannot be easily treated, furnace treatment 

is possible. This treatment has been shown to be effective in rendering 

unleachable and safe for discarding any unrecoverable trace metals left in 

the resulting slag. 

Cyanide Removal 

Bureau of Mines scientists are also investigating new methods of rinsing 

heaps to remove cyanide. Researchers have determined that interrupted 

or pulsed water rinsing, as opposed to continuous washing, more 

efficiently rinses cyanide from heaps and produces less liquid waste to be 

chemically neutralized or destroyed. Chemical neutralization methods 

are also being studied for a suite of cyanide complexes typically found in 

mining waste. In addition, an alternative to destroying cyanide or 

preventing its escape is the development of leaching agents other than 

cyanide. Several reagents such as thiourea are effective for recovering 

gold under certain circumstances. Thiosulfate, malononitriles, bromine, 

and chlorine compounds also have been shown to leach gold under 

specific conditions. 

Reclamation 

Bureau of Mines researchers are currently developing methods for 

reclamation and closure of mining operations. The focus of this work is 

on controlling hydrology at sites, decontaminating wastes when 

necessary, and stabilizing wastes for closure. For example, the current 

practice for sealing mine shafts is to install a concrete plug. This practice 

is difficult and expensive because it requires drilling into rock walls to 

provide support for the plug; access to remote shafts and portals is also a 

problem. One possible solution being investigated is the use of lowdensity foaming plastics and/or cements. The cost of the foaming plastic 

closure is about one-half that of concrete plugs, and the expansion 

SIC Code 10 64 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

characteristic of the foaming materials may eliminate the need for drilling 

into intact rock. Another important advantage of using foamed plastic or 

cement plugs is that these materials may provide a resistant seal to acidic 

mine waters. 

Flotation Technology 

Flotation mills separate metalliferrous minerals from waste rock, using 

surfactants to cause air bubbles to attach themselves to mineral particles 

and to float to the top of a frothing bath of ore slurry. The goal of 

flotation mill operators is to maximize the amount of valuable material 

floated, while minimizing the ore concentrate's gangue content. In order 

to also improve environmental quality, operators must minimize the 

amount of surfactants and heavy metals in the waste stream fed to the 

tailings pond. Reliable on-line measurements of metals content at various 

points throughout the mill is thus necessary to effect control of the 

operation. 

X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) is an analytical technique designed to rapidly 

measure the metals content of a flotation slurry sample. In mills with online X-ray analyzers, operators can base their responses to process 

changes on absolute determinations of the metals content of each stream 

sampled. In its simplest form the operator uses output information from 

the analyzer to adjust surfactant addition rates to meet quality goals. 

Some mills are moving toward a more advanced system of incorporating 

XRF technology, using central computers to store historical data and/or a 

detailed model of the total process to establish automatic control 

setpoints. 

This technology is now in use at the Doe Run Fletcher mill, which 

beneficiates a mixed sulfide ore. During the flotation process, assay data 

from the XRF unit is sent to a process control computer. Flowmeter 

readings from all of the reagent addition lines are also sent to the 

computer, as are the outputs from a variety of process monitors. The 

computer displays most of this data on an operator console in the mill 

control room. Based on the data presented, the operator can vary the 

reagent addition rates to obtain better mineral separation. The computer 

maintains an archive of the historical behavior of the mill, enabling mill 

managers to specify empirical formulae relating reagent needs to assay 

results. 

Use of an on-line X-ray analyzer, coupled with a process control 

computer, greatly simplifies the operation of a mill. One mill required 24 

operators, three engineers, and three supervisors before this technology 

September 1995 65 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

was introduced; it now requires about eight staff to operate. Benefits 

associated with this process control technology may include a decrease in 

reagent consumption, a significant environmental benefit; a stabilized 

process, increasing metal recovery rates; and more effective grinding 

control, allowing an increase in mill tonnage throughput. Doe Run 

estimates its cost savings to approach $785,000 per year, including a 14 

percent reduction in reagent costs per year and improved metallurgy 

resulting from higher purity concentrates. In addition, the technology has 

resulted in a reduction of 4,500 to 5,000 pounds of metal entering the 

tailings pond per day. 

Pyrite Flotation 

At the Superior Mine in Arizona, Magma Copper Company is currently 

producing a high grade pyrite product by subjecting copper tailings to an 

additional flotation circuit. Instead of generating a tailings high in 

sulfide, the facility produces less reactive tailings and two marketable 

pyrite products. 

Pyrite easily oxidizes to form sulfuric acid and, at many mine sites, is 

associated with acid generation from tailings piles and other mining 

activities. Removing pyrite prior to discharging the tailings will decrease 

the potential for acid generation from tailings, which may in turn 

minimize possible waste treatment and remediation costs. 

Magma's pyrite flotation circuit is similar to its copper flotation circuit 

and uses existing flotation equipment. Operators use reagents to float 

pyrite from copper tailings, producing a 99 percent pure pyrite 

concentrate. This concentrate is pumped to a settling pond for 

dewatering after exiting the flotation circuit. As the pyrite dries, it is 

excavated from the pond and sent to the plant to package for sale. 

Currently, the operation of pyrite flotation circuit is demand-driven, with 

the circuit used only as needed to meet the demand for the pyrite 

product. At other times, the pyrite is discharged with the tailings to the 

tailings impoundment. According to Magma's facility personnel, 

"breaking even" financially with the pyrite flotation project is a 

satisfactory result because of the resultant savings or avoidance of waste 

treatment costs associated with acid generation caused by pyrite in the 

tailings. 

Possible limitations to widespread application of this technology are 

related to the Superior Mine's unique ore, in which pyrite concentration 

reaches 25 percent (concentration at most copper mines is closer to five 

SIC Code 10 66 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

percent). Lower pyrite concentrations in other ore may make pyrite 

flotation more difficult and/or expensive. In addition, because the 

operation is demand-driven and operates only when needed, pyrite is 

removed from only a portion of the copper tailings. 

Tailings Reprocessing 

Magma Copper is also recovering additional copper from a tailings pile at 

its Pinto Valley operation. The tailings pile covers 210 acres and contains 

38 million tons of tailings; it was deposited between 1911 and 1932. Pinto 

Valley hydraulically mines the tailings pile, leaches the tailings, and 

produces copper by using a SX/EW facility. After leaching and washing 

of the slurried tailings, the remaining slurry is piped overland 

approximately five miles to an abandoned open copper pit mine for final 

disposal. 

The pile's oldest tailings contain .72 percent copper, while those deposited 

most recently contain .11 percent copper; Magma thus pre-strips the top 

layer in order to get to an economically recoverable zone. Magma still 

reprocesses this pre-stripped layer, although the copper recovered is 

extremely low. 

The hydraulic mining system's water jets and vacuum pumps break down 

clay aggregates, allowing more efficient tailings separation, and renders 

the tailings into a slurry for beneficiation processes. The slurry first enters 

a leach tank, then goes to the first of two thickeners. Overflow from this 

thickener becomes the pregnant leach solution (PLS), which is sent to the 

solvent extraction circuit. The underflow from the first thickener is 

pumped to a second thickener. Overflow from this thickener is returned 

to the mining circuit as feed for the hydraulic operations; the underflow is 

pumped into a tailings disposal area. Magma uses the same SX/EW 

operation for reprocessed tailings and its in situ leach operation; there is 

no difference between the SX/EW operation for the reprocessed tailings 

and other SX/EW plants in use at other copper sites. 

According to facility personnel, the operation has recently been 

financially profitable due to the increase of copper prices and is expected 

to continue to be profitable in the future. Environmentally, the benefit 

derived from the operation results from the removal of the tailings pile 

located in a drainage adjacent to a town and redepositing the tailings in 

an abandoned open pit in a relatively remote location. Magma credits the 

success of this operation to the high concentration of copper present in the 

tailings; other sites may have a lower percentage of copper in the tailings, 

which may make reprocessing less economical. 

September 1995 67 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Pipe Recycling/Reuse 

IMC operates phosphate rock mines in West Central Florida, and has 

implemented a waste minimization program involving the reuse and 

recycling of steel pipe used to transport slurry, water, tailings, and other 

materials. IMC obtains maximum use from its pipe in several ways: 

• Pipe used for matrix and clay transport is periodically rotated to 

ensure that wear is evenly spaced over the full diameter of the pipe 

• To the extent possible, pipe no longer suitable for the most 

demanding use is used in other, less demanding pipelines 

• Pipe no longer suitable for use in pipelines is either used for other 

purposes (such as culverts) or is sold for off-site reuse or scrap. 

IMC has developed a computerized model to predict how long a section 

of pipe can remain in each position and when it needs to be turned. 

When pipe can no longer be used for materials transport, any undamaged 

portions of pipe are removed for onsite reuse as culvert or sold to a local 

scrap dealer as usable pipe. Damaged pipe is sold to a scrap dealer. By 

reusing pipe onsite, IMC estimates that it saves approximately $1.5 

million each year. In 1991, $316,000 was received for pipe that could be 

reused offsite, and 4,200 tons of scrap piping was sold for an estimated 

total of $42,000 - $84,000. IMC's program reduces capital expenditures by 

reducing the amount of new pipe that must be purchased, as well as 

saving operating costs by avoiding costly shutdowns when pipes fail. 

Mine Tire Recycling 

Mine representatives have estimated the price of one large tire to range 

from $10,000 to $16,000, or over $100,000 to fit one large piece of 

equipment. Several options exist for recycling or reusing whole large 

tires. One alternative is retreading the tires for reuse; retreading reduces 

the demand for new tires and conserves resources (retreading a used tire 

requires less than 40 percent of the fossil fuel to make a new tire). The 

purchase price for retreaded tires is less than for new tires, providing an 

additional savings incentive. In addition to retreading, whole scrap tires 

are used in civil engineering applications, including construction, erosion 

control, and agriculture (feeding troughs, for example). 

Processing scrap tires involves shearing, cutting and/or shredding tires 

into smaller pieces. The major markets for processed tires are as tire 

SIC Code 10 68 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

derived fuel and in civil engineering applications. Scrap tires are an 

excellent fuel source, generating about 80 percent as much energy as 

crude oil per pound. In recent years, there have been major increases in 

the use of scrap tires as fuel by a number of industries, including power 

plants, cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, and tire manufacturing 

facilities. 

Mining companies may be able to access the tire retreading market 

through their current tire vendors. Depending on their condition and 

suitability, some vendors may offer reimbursement for used tires. Cobre, 

a tire vendor for the Dee Gold Mine, performs on-site evaluations of used 

tires to determine each tire's potential for retreading. If a tire is 

retreadable, Dee Gold Mine is reimbursed $500 per tire; if it isn't, Cobre 

will remove the tire free of charge. 

Two major impediments to recycling mine vehicle tires are the distance to 

existing resource recovery markets and the size of these large scrap tires. 

Large mining operations are not usually located near their potential 

markets in larger cities. For remote mine locations, some added effort 

may be necessary to find or develop markets. In order to reduce size and 

handling difficulties associated with used mine tires, shredders or shears 

may be used to cut large tires into pieces more suited to handling. 

Mine Water Management 

One of the major concerns regarding runoff from mining activities is the 

potential for acid generation and metal mobilization in waste associated 

with mining. Sources of potentially contaminated non-process waters at a 

mine site include: seepage from underground mine workings; runoff 

from abandoned/inactive mines; runoff from waste rock, overburden, 

and tailings piles; overflow from ponds or pits, especially during high 

precipitation or snow melt events; runoff from chemical storage areas; 

former mining and processing areas with contaminated residue; leaks 

from liquid/slurry transport lines; and runoff from other areas disturbed 

by mining operations. 

Effective practices for managing and controlling runon/runoff are also 

known as best management practices, or BMPs. BMPs can be measures or 

practices used to reduce the amount of pollution entering surface or 

groundwater, air, or land, and may take the form of a process, activity, or 

physical structure. BMPs include treatment requirements, operating 

procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, 

waste disposal, drainage from raw material storage or other disturbed 

areas. BMPs applicable to mine site discharges can be divided into three 

September 1995 69 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

general areas: 1) construction/reclamation; 2) management and 

housekeeping; and 3) treatment. The following table provides examples 

of specific techniques used within each of these areas. 

Exhibit 25 

Mine Water Management Techniques 

Construction/Reclamation 

Techniques 

Management & 

Housekeeping 

Techniques 

Treatment Techniques 

Diversion ditches and drainage 

systems 

Comprehensive pollution 

prevention plan 

Sedimentation basins 

Oil/water separators 

Rip-rap Immediate spill clean-up Neutralization 

Dikes and berms Inspection Artificial wetlands 

Grading or terracing Training and education 

Collection basins Routine maintenance 

Capping or sealing Proper handling 

procedures 

Vegetation and mulching Periodic systems reviews 

Silt fences 

The following cases illustrate how some facilities are approaching water 

management at their operations. First, the Hayden Hill Project is 

operated in Lassen County, California by Lassen Gold Mining, Inc., a 

subsidiary of Amax Gold Inc.. Amax Gold won a California Mining 

Association award for its facility reclamation plan, and the 1992 

DuPont/Conoco Environmental Leadership Award for environmental 

excellence in the precious metals industry. Mining operations include an 

open pit mine, waste rock disposal area, a heap leach pad, and mill 

processing facilities. 

Storm water control measures undertaken at Hayden Hill include: 

• Baseline and continual monitoring of ground and surface water 

• Double liner and leak detection for heap leach pad and processing 

ponds 

• Lined tailings impoundment, with a surrounding freeboard berm 

to protect against runon and overflow 

• Erosion control measures, such as retention ponds to intercept 

runoff and stream crossing constructed during low flow periods 

• Protection of stream bank to prevent grazing impacts 

• Groundwater springs near the open pit will be rerouted 

SIC Code 10 70 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

• Diversion of natural drainage around the heap leach pad 

• Solution pipes located in lined ditches. 

In addition, all runoff from the shops and warehouse areas is collected in 

a storm water collection ditch; above the mill area are storm water 

diversion ditches to route storm water around the mill to avoid potential 

contact with material at the mill. The waste rock dump basin is designed 

with interior benches that slope towards the inside of the basin to allow 

storm water to be captured as it flows across the bench. These "V" ditches 

will drain the runoff to a heap toe drain. 

Revegetation will be an important step in the mine's reclamation. To aid 

this effort, various erosion controls will be used, including rip-rap in 

shallow interception ditches, sediment collection basins, rock dikes, and 

straw bales as check dams around culverts. Expectations are to return the 

site to livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and 

recreational use after mining is complete. 

The Cyprus Bagdad Mine, operated by the Cyprus Bagdad Copper 

Corporation in Baghdad, Arizona, is another facility using an integrated 

approach to water management as part of its pollution prevention plan. 

Cyprus' pollution prevention plan was prepared in response to Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality requirements, and addresses many 

areas of the facility, including non-mining activities such as vehicle 

fueling. 

Examples of Cyprus' pollution prevention controls include: 

• Diversion ditches to carry runoff away from the solvent exchange 

leach and tailings disposal areas; regular ditch inspections and 

repairs 

• Runoff and spills channeled to collection basins and surge ponds; 

planned upgrades for many existing ponds with double liners and 

leak detection systems 

• Earthen berms around petroleum tanks to prevent runon from 

contacting the tank and surrounding areas 

• Visual leak/spill inspections of tailing disposal, reclaim water, 

seepage return, and leaching systems 

• Redirection and control of water from mine shop parking lot 

September 1995 71 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

• Collection and recycling of spilled fuel and oil; monitor equipment 

areas for spilled fuel and oil 

• Cover copper-concentrate trucks with heavy tarps to prevent in 

transit losses; store concentrate on concrete and asphalt pads 

• Construction of a lined impoundment and oil/water separator at 

truck wash area; chlorinated solvents no longer used at the truck 

wash, eliminating a contaminant source. 

A notable feature of Cyprus' pollution prevention and control plan is its 

comprehensiveness. All facets of facility operation are addressed, 

including frequency of routine maintenance and inspections; employee 

training; supervisor maintenance of monitoring logs; emergency backup 

systems testing, inspection of piping, sumps, and liners; and monitoring 

pump rates and pond and dam elevations. 

Lastly, the Valdez Creek Mine in Cantwell, Alaska is using stream 

diversion to both improve access to ore and prevent stream discharges. In 

order to access ore sources beneath an active stream channel, the Valdez 

Creek was diverted by constructing a diversion dam upstream of the 

active pit; the dam impounds water, which then flows through the 

diversion channel approximately one mile before rejoining the stream. 

The diversion channel is lined with a synthetic liner and rip-rap to 

prevent erosion and incision of the channel. To aid water management in 

the active pit, the facility uses two diversion ditches on either side of the 

valley above the mined area to intercept runoff before it reaches the pit. 

The lined diversion channel for Valdez Creek and the diversion ditches 

minimize impact to the downstream environment by reducing turbidity 

and sedimentation caused by mining operations. Stream diversion not 

only prevents stream discharges, but also improves access to the ore and 

has lowered operating costs by reducing pit dewatering requirements. 

SIC Code 10 72 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

VI. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

This section discusses the Federal statutes and regulations that may apply 

to this sector. The purpose of this section is to highlight, and briefly 

describe the applicable Federal requirements, and to provide citations for 

more detailed information. The three following sections are included. 

• Section IV.A contains a general overview of major statutes 

• Section IV.B contains a list of regulations specific to this industry 

• Section IV.C contains a list of pending and proposed regulations 

The descriptions within Section IV are intended solely for general 

information. Depending upon the nature or scope of the activities at a 

particular facility, these summaries may or may not necessarily describe 

all applicable environmental requirements. Moreover, they do not 

constitute formal interpretations or clarifications of the statutes and 

regulations. For further information, readers should consult the Code of 

Federal Regulations and other state or local regulatory agencies. EPA 

Hotline contacts are also provided for each major statute. 

VI.A. General Description of Major Statutes 

Resource Conservation And Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 which 

amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act, addresses solid (Subtitle D) and 

hazardous (Subtitle C) waste management activities. The Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 strengthened RCRA’s waste 

management provisions and added Subtitle I, which governs 

underground storage tanks (USTs). 

Regulations promulgated pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 

260-299) establish a “cradle-to-grave” system governing hazardous waste 

from the point of generation to disposal. RCRA hazardous wastes include 

the specific materials listed in the regulations (commercial chemical 

products, designated with the code "P" or "U"; hazardous wastes from 

specific industries/sources, designated with the code "K"; or hazardous 

wastes from non-specific sources, designated with the code "F") or 

materials which exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity and designated with the code "D"). 

Regulated entities that generate hazardous waste are subject to waste 

accumulation, manifesting, and recordkeeping standards. Facilities that 

September 1995 73 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste must obtain a permit, either 

from EPA or from a State agency which EPA has authorized to implement 

the permitting program. Subtitle C permits contain general facility 

standards such as contingency plans, emergency procedures, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements, financial assurance 

mechanisms, and unit-specific standards. RCRA also contains provisions 

(40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S and §264.10) for conducting corrective actions 

which govern the cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents 

from solid waste management units at RCRA-regulated facilities. 

Although RCRA is a Federal statute, many States implement the RCRA 

program. Currently, EPA has delegated its authority to implement 

various provisions of RCRA to 46 of the 50 States. 

Most RCRA requirements are not industry specific but apply to any 

company that transports, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. 

Here are some important RCRA regulatory requirements: 

• Identification of Solid and Hazardous Wastes (40 CFR Part 261) 

lays out the procedure every generator should follow to determine 

whether the material created is considered a hazardous waste, 

solid waste, or is exempted from regulation. 

• Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262) 

establishes the responsibilities of hazardous waste generators 

including obtaining an ID number, preparing a manifest, ensuring 

proper packaging and labeling, meeting standards for waste 

accumulation units, and recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Generators can accumulate hazardous waste for up 

to 90 days (or 180 days depending on the amount of waste 

generated) without obtaining a permit. 

• Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are regulations prohibiting the 

disposal of hazardous waste on land without prior treatment. 

Under the LDRs (40 CFR 268), materials must meet land disposal 

restriction (LDR) treatment standards prior to placement in a 

RCRA land disposal unit (landfill, land treatment unit, waste pile, 

or surface impoundment). Wastes subject to the LDRs include 

solvents, electroplating wastes, heavy metals, and acids. 

Generators of waste subject to the LDRs must provide notification 

of such to the designated TSD facility to ensure proper treatment 

prior to disposal. 

• Used Oil Management Standards (40 CFR Part 279) impose 

management requirements affecting the storage, transportation, 

SIC Code 10 74 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

burning, processing, and re-refining of the used oil. For parties 

that merely generate used oil, regulations establish storage 

standards. For a party considered a used oil marketer (one who 

generates and sells off-specification used oil directly to a used oil 

burner), additional tracking and paperwork requirements must be 

satisfied. 

• Tanks and Containers used to store hazardous waste with a high 

volatile organic concentration must meet emission standards under 

RCRA. Regulations (40 CFR Part 264-265, Subpart CC) require 

generators to test the waste to determine the concentration of the 

waste, to satisfy tank and container emissions standards, and to 

inspect and monitor regulated units. These regulations apply to all 

facilities who store such waste, including generators operating 

under the 90-day accumulation rule. 

• Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and 

hazardous substances are regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA. 

Subtitle I regulations (40 CFR Part 280) contain tank design and 

release detection requirements, as well as financial responsibility 

and corrective action standards for USTs. The UST program also 

establishes increasingly stringent standards, including upgrade 

requirements for existing tanks, that must be met by 1998. 

• Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) that use or burn fuel 

containing hazardous waste must comply with strict design and 

operating standards. BIF regulations (40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H) 

address unit design, provide performance standards, require 

emissions monitoring, and restrict the type of waste that may be 

burned. 

EPA's RCRA/Superfund/UST Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, responds to questions 

and distributes guidance regarding all RCRA regulations. The RCRA Hotline 

operates weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., EST, excluding Federal holidays. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), a 1980 law commonly known as Superfund, 

authorizes EPA to respond to releases, or threatened releases, of 

hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare, or the 

environment. CERCLA also enables EPA to force parties responsible for 

environmental contamination to clean it up or to reimburse the Superfund 

for response costs incurred by EPA. The Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised various sections of CERCLA, 

September 1995 75 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

extended the taxing authority for the Superfund, and created a freestanding law, SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

The CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting regulations (40 

CFR Part 302) direct the person in charge of a facility to report to the 

National Response Center (NRC) any environmental release of a 

hazardous substance which exceeds a reportable quantity. Reportable 

quantities are defined and listed in 40 CFR § 302.4. A release report may 

trigger a response by EPA, or by one or more Federal or State emergency 

response authorities. 

EPA implements hazardous substance responses according to 

procedures outlined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). The NCP includes 

provisions for permanent cleanups, known as remedial actions, and other 

cleanups referred to as "removals." EPA generally takes remedial actions 

only at sites on the National Priorities List (NPL), which currently 

includes approximately 1300 sites. Both EPA and states can act at other 

sites; however, EPA provides responsible parties the opportunity to 

conduct removal and remedial actions and encourages community 

involvement throughout the Superfund response process. 

EPA's RCRA/Superfund/UST Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, answers questions 

and references guidance pertaining to the Superfund program. The CERCLA 

Hotline operates weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., EST, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act 

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 

created the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA, also known as SARA Title III), a statute designed to improve 

community access to information about chemical hazards and to facilitate 

the development of chemical emergency response plans by State and local 

governments. EPCRA required the establishment of State emergency 

response commissions (SERCs), responsible for coordinating certain 

emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency 

planning committees (LEPCs). 

EPCRA and the EPCRA regulations (40 CFR Parts 350-372) establish four 

types of reporting obligations for facilities which store or manage 

specified chemicals: 

SIC Code 10 76 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

• EPCRA §302 requires facilities to notify the SERC and LEPC of the 

presence of any "extremely hazardous substance" (the list of such 

substances is in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B) if it has 

such substance in excess of the substance's threshold planning 

quantity, and directs the facility to appoint an emergency response 

coordinator. 

• EPCRA §304 requires the facility to notify the SERC and the LEPC 

in the event of a release exceeding the reportable quantity of a 

CERCLA hazardous substance or an EPCRA extremely hazardous 

substance. 

• EPCRA §§311 and 312 require a facility at which a hazardous 

chemical, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, is 

present in an amount exceeding a specified threshold to submit to 

the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department material safety data 

sheets (MSDSs) or lists of MSDSs and hazardous chemical 

inventory forms (also known as Tier I and II forms). This 

information helps the local government respond in the event of a 

spill or release of the chemical. 

• EPCRA §313 requires manufacturing facilities included in SIC 

codes 20 through 39, which have ten or more employees, and 

which manufacture, process, or use specified chemicals in amounts 

greater than threshold quantities, to submit an annual toxic 

chemical release report. This report, commonly known as the Form 

R, covers releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to various 

facilities and environmental media, and allows EPA to compile the 

national Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database. 

All information submitted pursuant to EPCRA regulations is publicly 

accessible, unless protected by a trade secret claim. 

EPA's EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 535-0202, answers questions and distributes 

guidance regarding the emergency planning and community right-to-know 

regulations. The EPCRA Hotline operates weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., 

EST, excluding Federal holidays. 

Clean Water Act 

The primary objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's 

surface waters. Pollutants regulated under the CWA include "priority" 

September 1995 77 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

pollutants, including various toxic pollutants; "conventional" pollutants, 

such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), 

fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; and "non-conventional" pollutants, 

including any pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority. 

The CWA regulates both direct and indirect discharges. The National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (CWA §402) 

controls direct discharges into navigable waters. Direct discharges or 

"point source" discharges are from sources such as pipes and sewers. 

NPDES permits, issued by either EPA or an authorized State (EPA has 

presently authorized forty States to administer the NPDES program), 

contain industry-specific, technology-based and/or water quality-based 

limits, and establish pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. A 

facility that intends to discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a 

permit prior to initiating its discharge. A permit applicant must provide 

quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in 

the facility's effluent. The permit will then set forth the conditions and 

effluent limitations under which a facility may make a discharge. 

A NPDES permit may also include discharge limits based on Federal or 

State water quality criteria or standards, that were designed to protect 

designated uses of surface waters, such as supporting aquatic life or 

recreation. These standards, unlike the technological standards, generally 

do not take into account technological feasibility or costs. Water quality 

criteria and standards vary from State to State, and site to site, depending 

on the use classification of the receiving body of water. Most States 

follow EPA guidelines which propose aquatic life and human health 

criteria for many of the 126 priority pollutants. 

Storm Water Discharges 

In 1987 the CWA was amended to require EPA to establish a program to 

address storm water discharges. In response, EPA promulgated the 

NPDES storm water permit application regulations. Storm water 

discharge associated with industrial activity means the discharge from 

any conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying storm water 

and which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw 

materials storage areas at an industrial plant (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)). 

These regulations require that facilities with the following storm water 

discharges apply for a NPDES permit: (1) a discharge associated with 

industrial activity; (2) a discharge from a large or medium municipal 

storm sewer system; or (3) a discharge which EPA or the State determines 

to contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant 

contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. 

SIC Code 10 78 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

The term "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" 

means a storm water discharge from one of 11 categories of industrial 

activity defined at 40 CFR 122.26. Six of the categories are defined by SIC 

codes while the other five are identified through narrative descriptions of 

the regulated industrial activity. If the primary SIC code of the facility is 

one of those identified in the regulations, the facility is subject to the 

storm water permit application requirements. If any activity at a facility 

is covered by one of the five narrative categories, storm water discharges 

from those areas where the activities occur are subject to storm water 

discharge permit application requirements. 

Those facilities/activities that are subject to storm water discharge permit 

application requirements are identified below. To determine whether a 

particular facility falls within one of these categories, the regulation 

should be consulted. 

Category i: Facilities subject to storm water effluent guidelines, new 

source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards. 

Category ii: Facilities classified as SIC 24-lumber and wood products 

(except wood kitchen cabinets); SIC 26-paper and allied products (except 

paperboard containers and products); SIC 28-chemicals and allied 

products (except drugs and paints); SIC 29-petroleum refining; and SIC 

311-leather tanning and finishing. 

Category iii: Facilities classified as SIC 10-metal mining; SIC 12-coal 

mining; SIC 13-oil and gas extraction; and SIC 14-nonmetallic mineral 

mining. 

Category iv: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. 

Category v: Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that 

receive or have received industrial wastes. 

Category vi: Facilities classified as SIC 5015-used motor vehicle parts; 

and SIC 5093-automotive scrap and waste material recycling facilities. 

Category vii: Steam electric power generating facilities. 

Category viii: Facilities classified as SIC 40-railroad transportation; SIC 

41-local passenger transportation; SIC 42-trucking and warehousing 

(except public warehousing and storage); SIC 43-U.S. Postal Service; SIC 

September 1995 79 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

44-water transportation; SIC 45-transportation by air; and SIC 5171-

petroleum bulk storage stations and terminals. 

Category ix: Sewage treatment works. 

Category x: Construction activities except operations that result in the 

disturbance of less than five acres of total land area. 

Category xi: Facilities classified as SIC 20-food and kindred products; SIC 

21-tobacco products; SIC 22-textile mill products; SIC 23-apparel related 

products; SIC 2434-wood kitchen cabinets manufacturing; SIC 25-

furniture and fixtures; SIC 265-paperboard containers and boxes; SIC 267-

converted paper and paperboard products; SIC 27-printing, publishing, 

and allied industries; SIC 283-drugs; SIC 285-paints, varnishes, lacquer, 

enamels, and allied products; SIC 30-rubber and plastics; SIC 31-leather 

and leather products (except leather and tanning and finishing); SIC 323-

glass products; SIC 34-fabricated metal products (except fabricated 

structural metal); SIC 35-industrial and commercial machinery and 

computer equipment; SIC 36-electronic and other electrical equipment 

and components; SIC 37-transportation equipment (except ship and boat 

building and repairing); SIC 38-measuring, analyzing, and controlling 

instruments; SIC 39-miscellaneous manufacturing industries; and SIC 

4221-4225-public warehousing and storage. 

Pretreatment Program 

Another type of discharge that is regulated by the CWA is one that goes 

to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The national 

pretreatment program (CWA §307(b)) controls the indirect discharge of 

pollutants to POTWs by "industrial users." Facilities regulated under 

§307(b) must meet certain pretreatment standards. The goal of the 

pretreatment program is to protect municipal wastewater treatment plants 

from damage that may occur when hazardous, toxic, or other wastes are 

discharged into a sewer system and to protect the quality of sludge 

generated by these plants. Discharges to a POTW are regulated primarily 

by the POTW itself, rather than the State or EPA. 

EPA has developed technology-based standards for industrial users of 

POTWs. Different standards apply to existing and new sources within 

each category. "Categorical" pretreatment standards applicable to an 

industry on a nationwide basis are developed by EPA. In addition, 

another kind of pretreatment standard, "local limits," are developed by 

the POTW in order to assist the POTW in achieving the effluent 

limitations in its NPDES permit. 

SIC Code 10 80 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Regardless of whether a State is authorized to implement either the 

NPDES or the pretreatment program, if it develops its own program, it 

may enforce requirements more stringent than Federal standards. 

EPA’s Office of Water, at (202) 260-5700, will direct callers with questions about 

the CWA to the appropriate EPA office. EPA also maintains a bibliographic 

database of Office of Water publications which can be accessed through the 

Ground Water and Drinking Water resource center, at (202) 260-7786. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that EPA establish 

regulations to protect human health from contaminants in drinking water. 

The law authorizes EPA to develop national drinking water standards 

and to create a joint Federal-State system to ensure compliance with these 

standards. The SDWA also directs EPA to protect underground sources 

of drinking water through the control of underground injection of liquid 

wastes. 

EPA has developed primary and secondary drinking water standards 

under its SDWA authority. EPA and authorized States enforce the 

primary drinking water standards, which are contaminant-specific 

concentration limits that apply to certain public drinking water supplies. 

Primary drinking water standards consist of maximum contaminant level 

goals (MCLGs), which are non-enforceable health-based goals, and 

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are enforceable limits set as 

close to MCLGs as possible, considering cost and feasibility of attainment. 

The SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) program (40 CFR Parts 

144-148) is a permit program which protects underground sources of 

drinking water by regulating five classes of injection wells. UIC permits 

include design, operating, inspection, and monitoring requirements. 

Wells used to inject hazardous wastes must also comply with RCRA 

corrective action standards in order to be granted a RCRA permit, and 

must meet applicable RCRA land disposal restrictions standards. The 

UIC permit program is primarily State-enforced, since EPA has 

authorized all but a few States to administer the program. 

The SDWA also provides for a Federally-implemented Sole Source 

Aquifer program, which prohibits Federal funds from being expended on 

projects that may contaminate the sole or principal source of drinking 

water for a given area, and for a State-implemented Wellhead Protection 

September 1995 81 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

program, designed to protect drinking water wells and drinking water 

recharge areas. 

EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at (800) 426-4791, answers questions and 

distributes guidance pertaining to SDWA standards. The Hotline operates from 

9:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m., EST, excluding Federal holidays. 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) granted EPA authority to create 

a regulatory framework to collect data on chemicals in order to evaluate, 

assess, mitigate, and control risks which may be posed by their 

manufacture, processing, and use. TSCA provides a variety of control 

methods to prevent chemicals from posing unreasonable risk. 

TSCA standards may apply at any point during a chemical’s life cycle. 

Under TSCA §5, EPA has established an inventory of chemical 

substances. If a chemical is not already on the inventory, and has not 

been excluded by TSCA, a premanufacture notice (PMN) must be 

submitted to EPA prior to manufacture or import. The PMN must 

identify the chemical and provide available information on health and 

environmental effects. If available data are not sufficient to evaluate the 

chemical's effects, EPA can impose restrictions pending the development 

of information on its health and environmental effects. EPA can also 

restrict significant new uses of chemicals based upon factors such as the 

projected volume and use of the chemical. 

Under TSCA §6, EPA can ban the manufacture or distribution in 

commerce, limit the use, require labeling, or place other restrictions on 

chemicals that pose unreasonable risks. Among the chemicals EPA 

regulates under §6 authority are asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 

and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 

EPA’s TSCA Assistance Information Service, at (202) 554-1404, answers 

questions and distributes guidance pertaining to Toxic Substances Control Act 

standards. The Service operates from 8:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., EST, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, including the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, are designed to “protect and enhance 

the nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare 

and the productive capacity of the population.” The CAA consists of six 

SIC Code 10 82 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

sections, known as Titles, which direct EPA to establish national 

standards for ambient air quality and for EPA and the States to 

implement, maintain, and enforce these standards through a variety of 

mechanisms. Under the CAAA, many facilities will be required to obtain 

permits for the first time. State and local governments oversee, manage, 

and enforce many of the requirements of the CAAA. CAA regulations 

appear at 40 CFR Parts 50-99. 

Pursuant to Title I of the CAA, EPA has established national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQSs) to limit levels of "criteria pollutants," 

including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, 

ozone, and sulfur dioxide. Geographic areas that meet NAAQSs for a 

given pollutant are classified as attainment areas; those that do not meet 

NAAQSs are classified as non-attainment areas. Under §110 of the CAA, 

each State must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to identify 

sources of air pollution and to determine what reductions are required to 

meet Federal air quality standards. 

Title I also authorizes EPA to establish New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPSs), which are nationally uniform emission standards for 

new stationary sources falling within particular industrial categories. 

NSPSs are based on the pollution control technology available to that 

category of industrial source but allow the affected industries the 

flexibility to devise a cost-effective means of reducing emissions. 

Under Title I, EPA establishes and enforces National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), nationally uniform standards 

oriented towards controlling particular hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

Title III of the CAAA further directed EPA to develop a list of sources that 

emit any of 189 HAPs, and to develop regulations for these categories of 

sources. To date EPA has listed 174 categories and developed a schedule 

for the establishment of emission standards. The emission standards will 

be developed for both new and existing sources based on "maximum 

achievable control technology" (MACT). The MACT is defined as the 

control technology achieving the maximum degree of reduction in the 

emission of the HAPs, taking into account cost and other factors. 

Title II of the CAA pertains to mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses, 

and planes. Reformulated gasoline, automobile pollution control devices, 

and vapor recovery nozzles on gas pumps are a few of the mechanisms 

EPA uses to regulate mobile air emission sources. 

Title IV establishes a sulfur dioxide emissions program designed to 

reduce the formation of acid rain. Reduction of sulfur dioxide releases 

September 1995 83 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

will be obtained by granting to certain sources limited emissions 

allowances, which, beginning in 1995, will be set below previous levels of 

sulfur dioxide releases. 

Title V of the CAAA of 1990 created a permit program for all "major 

sources" (and certain other sources) regulated under the CAA. One 

purpose of the operating permit is to include in a single document all air 

emissions requirements that apply to a given facility. States are 

developing the permit programs in accordance with guidance and 

regulations from EPA. Once a State program is approved by EPA, 

permits will be issued and monitored by that State. 

Title VI is intended to protect stratospheric ozone by phasing out the 

manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals and restrict their use and 

distribution. Production of Class I substances, including 15 kinds of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), will be phased out entirely by the year 2000, 

while certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) will be phased out by 

2030. 

EPA's Control Technology Center, at (919) 541-0800, provides general 

assistance and information on CAA standards. The Stratospheric Ozone 

Information Hotline, at (800) 296-1996, provides general information about 

regulations promulgated under Title VI of the CAA, and EPA's EPCRA Hotline, 

at (800) 535-0202, answers questions about accidental release prevention under 

CAA §112(r). In addition, the Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board 

System (modem access (919) 541-5742)) includes recent CAA rules, EPA 

guidance documents, and updates of EPA activities. 

VI.B. Industry-Specific Requirements 

Three types of laws govern and/or regulate the mining of metal 

resources. The first type, (i.e., the Mining in National Parks Act and the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), define areas that are off-limits to metal 

mining. The second type of law, (i.e., the General Mining Law of 1872), 

defines methods for allocating metal deposits for extraction. The third 

type of law, those governing the extraction process and establishing 

restrictions on the types and amounts of wastes that may be generated, 

comprises most of the following discussion. 

General Mining Law of 1872 

The General Mining Law of 1872 is one of the major statutes that direct 

the Federal government's land management policy. The Mining Law 

SIC Code 10 84 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

grants free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals 

in public domain lands, and allows them, on discovery, to stake a claim 

on that deposit. According to staff in EPA's Office of Solid Waste, 

roughly 40 percent of U.S. mines operate under this provision. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Department of the 

Interior, has authority to regulate these mining claim operations under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. FLPMA 

established BLM's general land management and planning authority (43 

CFR Part 3809), and requires that mining operations on Federal lands are 

regulated to prevent "unnecessary and undue degradation." 

While mining operations are subject to varying levels of scrutiny, all 

operations must be reclaimed and must comply with all applicable State 

and Federal laws, including air and water quality standards such as those 

established under the CAA and CWA, and standards for the disposal of 

solid waste under RCRA. 

In addition to requiring reclamation bond posting, BLM requires mining 

operations that involve cyanide leaching to meet the following standards: 

• Fencing must be used to ensure protection of the public, livestock, 

and wildlife 

• Facilities must be designed to contain the maximum operating 

water balance in addition to the water from a 100-year, 24-hour 

storm event; containment ponds must be included in all 

containment systems 

• Leakage detection and recovery systems must be designed for heap 

and solution containment structures; monitoring of ground and 

surface water through closure and final reclamation is required 

• Cyanide solution and heaps must be neutralized or detoxified. 

Although BLM has general management authority for the mineral 

resources on Federal lands, the Forest Service (FS) also regulates mining 

activities on Forest Service land, with a similar mandate to minimize 

adverse environmental impacts. The National Forest Management Act of 

1976 provides the Forest Service with authorities and responsibilities 

similar to those provided to BLM by FLPMA. Like BLM's regulations, 

they require compliance with the Clean Water Act and other 

environmental statutes and regulations. FS generally consults with 

appropriate agencies of the Department of the Interior, including BLM, in 

September 1995 85 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

reviewing technical aspects of proposed mining operations. FS also 

conducts environmental assessments of proposed plans and, if necessary, 

prepares EISs pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. FS also 

specifies standards for reclamation and may require bond posting. 

EPA is currently pursuing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 

the Department of the Interior to formally coordinate regulatory and 

enforcement efforts concerning mining operations on Federal lands. 

Ongoing enforcement efforts are commonly coordinated with BLM State 

offices, as part of a broader strategy to simplify and coordinate oversight 

of mining operations at the State and Federal level. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Under the Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits must be acquired before any pollutant can be 

discharged from a point source into U.S. waters. EPA has established 

national technology-based effluent limitation guidelines for ore mining 

and dressing operations (40 CFR Part 440). These include new source 

performance standards based on Best Available Demonstrated 

Technology (BADT). For mine and mill point source discharges, 40 CFR 

Part 440 establishes the maximum levels of pollutants that can be released 

daily and monthly. The discharger must not exceed the daily allowance 

nor the average allowed over an entire month in order to comply with 

regulations. For most metals, the monthly averages are one-half the daily 

maximums for metal pollutants. 

Contaminated storm water runoff from some mining operations has been 

documented as causing water quality degradation, according to a 

Technical Resource Document on extraction and beneficiation of copper 

by EPA's OSW. In the past, point source storm water discharges have 

received limited emphasis under the NDPES program. However, EPA 

has promulgated regulations that specifically address point source 

discharges of storm water from industrial facilities, including active and 

inactive/abandoned mine sites (55 FR 47990; November 16, 1990). These 

regulations require NPDES permits for all discharges of contaminated 

storm water. The Water Quality Act of 1987 added §402(p)(2)(B), 

requiring that point source discharges of storm water associated with 

industrial activity (including active and inactive mining operations) be 

permitted by October, 1992. This provision includes discharges from 

"areas where industrial activity has taken place in the past and significant 

materials remain and are exposed to storm water." The storm water 

permitting regulations address discharges from mine sites that occur as a 

result of precipitation events where the runoff from those sites is 

SIC Code 10 86 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

contaminated by exposed overburden, raw material, intermediate 

products, finished products, byproducts, or waste materials resulting 

from present or past mining activities. 

In the case of active mine sites, the storm water regulations apply to both 

storm water discharges from mining operations as well as to areas used 

for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment, 

shipping and receiving areas, and haul roads. For inactive or abandoned 

mines, all point source discharges of contaminated storm water (i.e., 

storm water that has come into contact with mine facilities, materials or 

wastes) must be covered under an NPDES storm water permit. Some 

storm water discharges from mine sites are not subject to NPDES 

permitting, including storm water that is not contaminated by contact 

with overburden, raw material, or waste materials located on the site of 

the operation. 

The following exhibit highlights examples of discharges from ore mining 

and dressing facilities that are subject to 40 CFR Part 440 or to storm water 

permitting. 

Exhibit 26 

Mine Discharges Subject to Permitting 

Runoff/drainage discharges subject to 40 CFR 

Part 440 effluent limitation guidelines 

Subject to storm water permitting (not 

subject to 40 CFR Part 440) 

Land application area 

Crusher area 

Spent ore piles, surge piles, ore stockpiles, waste 

rock/overburden piles 

Pumped and unpumped drainage and mine water 

from pits/underground mines 

Seeps/French drains 

On-site haul roads, if constructed of waste rock or 

spent ore or if wastewater subject to mine 

drainage limits is used for dust control 

Tailings dams/dikes when constructed of waste 

rock/tailings 

Unreclaimed disturbed areas 

Topsoil piles 

Haul roads not on active mining area 

On-site haul roads not constructed of waste 

rock or spent ore (unless wastewater 

subject to mine drainage limits is used for 

dust control) 

Tailings dams, dikes when not constructed of 

waste rock/tailings 

Concentration/mill building/site (if discharge 

is storm water only, with no contact with 

piles) 

Reclaimed areas released from reclamation 

bonds prior to 12/17/90 

Partially, inadequately reclaimed areas or areas 

not released from reclamation bond 

Most ancillary areas (e.g., chemical and 

explosives storage, power plant, 

equipment/truck maintenance and wash 

areas, etc.) 

September 1995 87 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

The concentration of pollutants discharged in mine drainage from mines 

operated to obtain copper bearing ores, lead bearing ores, zinc bearing 

ores, gold bearing ores, silver bearing ores, or any combination of these 

ores in open-pit or underground operations other than placer deposits 

shall not exceed: 

Exhibit 27 

Mine Discharge Limitations 

Effluent Characteristic Maximum of any 1 

day (mg/l) 

Average of daily values for 

30 days (mg/l) 

TSS 30 20 

Cu 30 15 

Zn 15 7.5 

Pb 6 3 

Hg 2 1 

pH * * 

*Within the range 6.0 

to 9.0 

Source: 40 CFR 440.102(a). 

Beneficiation is regulated by the same effluent limitation guidelines as 

extraction processes. 

The concentration of pollutants discharged from mills that employ the 

froth flotation process alone or in conjunction with other processes, for the 

beneficiation of copper ores, lead ores, zinc ores, gold ores, or silver ores, 

or any combination of these ores shall not exceed: 

Exhibit 28

Mill Discharge Limitations

Effluent 

Characteristic 

Maximum for any 1 day Average of daily values for 30 

consecutive days 

TSS 30 20 

Cu 30 15 

Zn 10 5 

Pb 6 

Hg 0.002 0.001 

Cd 10 0.05 

pH * 

*Within the range 6.0 

to 9.0 

3 

* 

Source: 40 CFR 440.102(b). 

SIC Code 10 88 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

The Safe Drinking Water Act may also apply to mine operations if 

primary drinking water sources and Class 3 wells are affected by mine 

wastewater releases. EPA regulates cadmium, lead, and arsenic under its 

primary drinking water standards (40 CFR 141.11(b)), and regulates 

copper, iron, manganese, and zinc under its secondary drinking water 

standards (40 CFR 143.3). 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

The Bevill Amendment 

In 1980, Congress amended RCRA in the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

Amendments, adopting what has been dubbed the Bevill Amendment, 

after Representative Tom Bevill of Alabama. The amendment temporarily 

exempted from Subtitle C regulation solid waste from ore and mineral 

extraction, beneficiation, and processing. The Amendment directed EPA 

either to develop Subtitle C regulations for the waste or determine that 

the exemption should continue, and to present its findings in a report to 

Congress. 

EPA modified its hazardous waste regulations to reflect the Bevill 

exclusion and issued a preliminary, and quite broad, interpretation of the 

exclusion's scope. In particular, it interpreted the exclusion as covering 

"solid waste from the exploration, mining, milling, smelting and refining 

of ores and minerals." Based on this broad interpretation of the Bevill 

Amendment, EPA suspended its Subtitle C listing of six hazardous 

smelter wastes. 

In 1985 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia awarded 

judgment to the Environmental Defense Fund and two public interest 

groups that had sued EPA for failing to submit the required report to 

Congress and make the regulatory determination by the statutory 

deadline. The court imposed two schedules, one for completing studies 

of extraction and beneficiation wastes and submitting them in a report to 

Congress, and the second for proposing reinterpretation of mineralprocessing wastes. In so doing, the court effectively split the wastes that 

might be eligible for exclusion from regulation into two groups: mineral 

extraction and beneficiation wastes; and mineral processing wastes. 

In December 1985 EPA submitted a report to Congress on mining wastes 

(1985 Report to Congress: Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of 

Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, 

September 1995 89 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

and Oil Shale) in which EPA found that some mining wastes exhibit 

hazardous characteristics, that waste management practices have caused 

environmental damage, and that the range of risk from mining waste is 

broad. In July 1986 EPA published a regulatory determination, upheld in 

subsequent court challenges, that RCRA Subtitle C regulation of 

extraction and beneficiation wastes was unwarranted because mining 

wastes tend to be disposed of in arid climates, facilities and wastes are 

located in sparsely populated areas where human contact is minimal, and 

waste volumes are high. It also determined that it should develop a riskbased, State-run mining waste program under RCRA Subtitle D. 

In keeping with its court-ordered directive to reinterpret the Mining 

Waste exclusion for mineral processing wastes, EPA proposed to narrow 

the scope of the exclusion for mineral-processing wastes to include only a 

few specific waste streams. Unable to articulate criteria for selecting these 

wastes, EPA later withdrew this proposal and was subsequently sued by 

the Environmental Defense Fund. The courts ruled against EPA, holding 

that the Agency's interpretation of Bevill exclusions was overbroad. The 

court ordered EPA to restrict the scope of the exclusion as it applied to 

mineral-processing wastes to include only "large volume, low hazard" 

wastes. 

In a series of rulemaking notices, EPA reinterpreted the exclusion for 

mineral-processing wastes and defined which mineral-processing wastes 

met the high-volume, low-hazard criteria. The vast majority of mineralprocessing wastes did not meet both criteria. EPA published its final 

regulatory determination in 1991, in compliance with a court-ordered 

deadline. The final rule permanently retains the Bevill exemption for 20 

mineral-processing wastes. EPA determined that regulation under RCRA 

Subtitle C was inappropriate for these wastes because of the extremely 

high cost to industry and the technical infeasibility of managing them 

under Subtitle C requirements; 18 of the wastes are subject to applicable 

State requirements, while the remaining two (phosphogypsum and 

phosphoric acid process waste water) are currently being evaluated by 

EPA. 

Wastes from the extraction and beneficiation of ores and minerals remain 

exempt from Subtitle C requirements, irrespective of their chemical 

characteristics; EPA may, in the future, evaluate the appropriateness of 

regulating these wastes under RCRA Subtitle D as an industrial waste. 

Wastes from mineral processing, however, are not exempt from Subtitle C 

unless they are one of the 20 specific wastes identified in EPA's final 

ruling. 

SIC Code 10 90 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

In addition, only wastes that are uniquely associated with the extraction 

and beneficiation of ores and minerals (or one of the 20 listed mineral 

processing wastes) are excluded from hazardous waste regulation. Nonuniquely associated wastes are typically generated as a result of 

maintaining mining machinery or as a result of other facility activities, 

and continue to be subject to Subtitle C regulation. These non-uniquely 

associated wastes may include used oil, polychlorinated biphenyls, 

discarded commercial chemicals, cleaning solvents, filters, empty drums, 

laboratory wastes, and general refuse. 

Determining how and under what circumstances the Bevill Amendment 

exclusions should be interpreted in regulating mining wastes continues to 

be a subject of discussion and study, at least in part because many 

beneficiation terms are used to describe activities common to a wide 

range of nonexempt industries and to describe mineral-processing 

operations that occur at the same location as the beneficiation operations. 

Beneficiation and mineral-processing operations are often closely linked; 

in order to apply Subtitle C regulations at a mine site, a regulator often 

must prove that the waste is not a beneficiation waste. Because a variety 

of regulators, at both Federal and State levels, are independently 

interpreting the Bevill rules, the potential for inconsistent interpretations 

is significant. Staff in EPA's OSW have suggested the following 

guidelines for regulators and the regulated community in distinguishing 

between exempt and nonexempt wastes at mines and mineral-processing 

sites: 

• Determine whether the material is considered a solid waste under 

RCRA. 

• Determine whether the facility is using a primary ore or mineral to 

produce a final or intermediate product and also whether 50 

percent of the feedstocks are from secondary sources. 

• Establish whether the material and the operation that generates it 

are uniquely associated with mineral production. 

• Determine where in the sequence of operations beneficiation ends 

and mineral processing begins. 

• If the material is a mineral-processing waste, determine whether it 

is one of the 20 special wastes from mineral processing. 

This sequence will result in one of three determinations: 1) the material is 

not a solid waste and therefore not subject to RCRA; 2) the material is a 

September 1995 91 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

solid waste but is exempt from RCRA Subtitle C because of the Mining 

Waste Exclusion; or 3) the material is a solid waste that is not exempt 

from RCRA Subtitle C and is subject to regulation. 

Comprehensive Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

Although Bevill wastes are excluded from regulation under RCRA 

Subtitle C, they can be addressed under CERCLA. Mining companies 

may be liable under CERCLA for the release or threat of release of 

hazardous substances, covering releases to air, surface water, 

groundwater and soils. Many mines, where practices did not incorporate 

the safeguards now required under the CWA, allowed runoff from mine 

and tailings sites to flow into nearby streams and lakes. Even newer 

mines, which have been subject to CWA regulations, have been targeted 

for CERCLA enforcement. Some of these mines, such as Colorado's 

Summitville Mine, have been listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). 

Mine owners may also be liable for damages to natural resources as a 

result of mining activity. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Under §111 of CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

applicable to metallic mineral-processing plants have been established (40 

CFR 60 Subpart LL). These standards regulate emissions of particulate 

matter in metal mining operations in crushers, conveyor belt transfer 

points, thermal dryers, product packaging stations, storage bins, truck 

loading and unloading stations, and rail car loading and unloading. 

Although all underground mining facilities are exempt from these 

provisions, fugitive dust emissions from mining activities may be 

regulated (usually by requiring dust suppression management activities) 

through State permit programs established to meet Federal NAAQSs. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA requires that all Federal agencies prepare detailed statements 

assessing the environmental impact of, and alternatives to, major Federal 

actions that may "significantly affect" the environment. An environmental 

impact statement (EIS) must provide a fair and full discussion of 

significant environmental impacts and inform decision-makers and the 

public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts on the environment; EISs must explore and evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives, even if they are not within the authority of the 

lead agency. NEPA authorities are solely procedural; NEPA cannot 

compel selection of the environmentally preferred alternative. 

SIC Code 10 92 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Federal actions specifically related to mining that may require EISs 

include Federal land management agency (e.g. BLM and Forest Service) 

approval of plans of operations for hardrock mining on 

Federally-managed lands. All effected media (e.g., air, water, soil, 

geologic, cultural, economic resources, etc.) must be addressed. The EIS 

provides the basis for the permit decision; for example, an NPDES permit 

may be issued or denied based on EPA's review of the overall impacts, 

not just discharge-related impacts, of the proposed project and 

alternatives. Issues may include the potential for acid rock drainage, 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat value and losses, sediment production, 

mitigation, and reclamation. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The ESA provides a means to protect threatened or endangered species 

and the ecosystems that support them. It requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities undertaken on either Federal or non-Federal 

property do not have adverse impacts on threatened or endangered 

species or their habitat. In a June 1995 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court 

upheld interpretations of the Act that allow agencies to consider impact 

on habitat as a potential form of prohibited "harm" to endangered species. 

Agencies undertaking a Federal action (such as a BLM review of 

proposed mining operations) must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS); an EIS must be prepared if "any major part of a new 

source will have significant adverse effect on the habitat" of a Federally or 

State-listed threatened or endangered species. 

State Statutes 

In addition to Federal laws, State and common laws also affect waste 

generation from mining activities. State law generally requires that 

permits be obtained prior to commencement of mining activities; permits 

may require design, performance, closure, and reclamation standards, 

and may impose monitoring requirements. Under common law, a mine 

owner may be liable for trespassing if wastes migrate into and damage 

another's property, or if the waste impacts the community as a whole, a 

miner may be liable for creating a public nuisance. Over the last five 

years several States have substantially altered their mining regulations to 

prevent the damage caused by past mining operations. Considerable 

disagreement remains, however, between mining industry groups and the 

environmental community regarding the effectiveness of these State 

regulations in preventing damage to the environment. 

September 1995 93 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Many Western States require mining operations to obtain reclamation 

bonds and mining permits that are designed to regulate and monitor 

mining activity. States that require bonding and/or permitting include 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. To 

regulate mining activity in the State of Colorado, for example, the State 

requires mining operations to obtain: 1) a performance bond, 2) a 

reclamation bond, and 3) a permit. The performance bond outlines what 

the mining operation intends to do on the land, and is simply a promise 

from the mining operation that it will reclaim the land. This bond gives 

Colorado the authority to pursue reclamation costs from mining 

operations that fail to properly reclaim the land. The reclamation bond, 

also known as a financial warranty, equals the cost the State would incur 

if it were to hire someone to reclaim the site should the mining operation 

fail to do so. Although performance bonds are updated periodically, the 

bonds have not always been adequate to cover closure costs. 

VI.C. Pending and Proposed Regulatory Requirements 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 

(EPCRA) Section 313 mandates that owners and operators of facilities that 

manufacture, process, or otherwise use a listed chemical report to EPA 

their annual releases of these chemicals to any environmental medium. 

EPA makes this information available to the public in the form of the 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). TRI currently requires reporting from 

facilities in SIC codes 20-39 that meet various threshold requirements. 

EPCRA Section 313 gives EPA discretionary authority to modify the 

coverage of facilities required to report to EPA for inclusion in the TRI. 

EPA is considering expanding the TRI through the development of 

reporting requirements for additional facilities. These additional facilities 

include a list of 25 SIC codes that contribute 99 percent of the nonmanufacturing TRI chemical loadings to the environment. SIC code 10 is 

among these 25 SIC codes. EPA anticipates publication of a proposed rule 

in late 1995 or early 1996 requiring additional facilities to report the use, 

release, and transfer of TRI chemicals. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

A comprehensive bill was introduced in Congress in 1995 to reauthorize 

the Clean Water Act. The bill may affect EPA's authority to require 

SIC Code 10 94 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

changes in production processes, products, or raw materials to control 

emissions of toxins; may require risk assessments for water quality 

standards, effluent limitations or other regulatory requirements; and may 

require social, economic, and environmental benefits to be weighed in 

establishing regulations. Potentially large sectors of the mining industry 

could be affected by this legislation. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) 

EPA continues to prepare rules for industry sources subject to hazardous 

air pollutant standards under the CAA, as amended. The sources are 

those that emit one or more of the 189 substances defined as hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) under the CAA. The EPA published a list of these 

sources in 1992 and has begun to define Maximum Achievable Control 

Standards that will apply to them. Although the timetable for issuing 

regulatory controls varies, proposed standards for most mineral 

industries are due by November 15, 1997. 

EPA is also reviewing and updating national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide to 

incorporate new scientific and technical information that has become 

available since the last reviews. Based on these revised data, EPA will 

determine whether revisions to the standards are appropriate. The metal 

mining sector will be affected by any revisions to these standards. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 require EPA to 

promulgate regulations establishing treatment standards that must be met 

before hazardous waste may be disposed on land. An announcement of 

new proposed rulemaking was made on October 24, 1991 in 56 CFR 

55160. The proposed rulemaking established treatment standards for 

certain mineral processing waste and toxicity characteristic metals. 

Proposed rulemaking is expected mid-1995 and final action is expected 

mid-1996. 

In a July 1986 Regulatory Determination, EPA stated that it was not 

appropriate to regulate the extraction and beneficiation wastes covered in 

the 1985 Report to Congress: Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of 

Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, 

and Oil Shale. Among the reasons cited by EPA for the special treatment 

of mining wastes were: 1) mining waste is generated in much larger 

volumes than industrial wastes (the average mining waste facility 

produces 3,000,000 metric tons of waste annually, while the average 

September 1995 95 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

RCRA Subtitle C regulated waste producer produces 50,000 metric tons 

annually); 2) mining waste sites are usually much larger than traditional 

waste producers. The average tailings pile covers 494 acres and the 

average mining waste piles cover 126 acres, while the average Subtitle C 

hazardous waste impoundment of landfill is six to ten acres; 3) mining 

waste streams are believed to have lower human exposure and risk 

potential. 

As a result, EPA determined that RCRA Subtitle C controls may be 

neither technically nor economically feasible, nor at times necessary to 

protect human health and the environment. EPA recommended 

development of a primarily State-implemented, site-specific, and riskbased regulatory approach under Subtitle D of RCRA. The result was the 

preparation of Strawman I and II proposals, which would regulate 

material uniquely associated with mining that the regulatory authority 

determines could pose a threat to human health and the environment, 

including mill tailings, stockpiled ores, leaching solutions, and water that 

may accumulate hazardous constituents. 

While the Strawman proposals no longer represent a viable and current 

Agency approach to the mining industry, EPA may in the future evaluate 

the appropriateness of regulating mining waste under RCRA Subtitle D as 

an industrial waste. 

SIC Code 10 96 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROFILE 

Background 

To date, EPA has focused much of its attention on measuring compliance 

with specific environmental statutes. This approach allows the Agency to 

track compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental statutes. 

Within the last several years, the Agency has begun to supplement singlemedia compliance indicators with facility-specific, multi-media indicators 

of compliance. In doing so, EPA is in a better position to track compliance 

with all statutes at the facility level, and within specific industrial sectors. 

A major step in building the capacity to compile multimedia data for 

industrial sectors was the creation of EPA's Integrated Data for 

Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system. IDEA has the capacity to "read 

into" the Agency's single-media databases, extract compliance records, 

and match the records to individual facilities. The IDEA system can 

match Air, Water, Waste, Toxics/Pesticides/EPCRA, TRI, and 

Enforcement Docket records for a given facility, and generate a list of 

historical permit, inspection, and enforcement activity. IDEA also has the 

capability to analyze data by geographic area and corporate holder. As 

the capacity to generate multimedia compliance data improves, EPA will 

make available more in-depth compliance and enforcement information. 

Additionally, sector-specific measures of success for compliance 

assistance efforts are under development. 

Compliance and Enforcement Profile Description 

Using inspection, violation, and enforcement data from the IDEA system, 

this section provides information regarding the historical compliance and 

enforcement activity of this sector. In order to mirror the facility universe 

reported in the Toxic Chemical Profile, the data reported within this 

section consist only of records from the TRI reporting universe. With this 

decision, the selection criteria are consistent across sectors with certain 

exceptions. For the sectors that do not normally report to the TRI 

program, data have been provided from EPA's Facility Indexing System 

(FINDS), which tracks facilities in all media databases. Please note that in 

this section EPA does not attempt to define the actual number of facilities 

that fall within each sector. Instead, the section portrays the records of a 

subset of facilities within the sector that are well-defined within EPA 

databases. 

September 1995 97 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

As a check on the relative size of the full sector universe, most notebooks 

contain an estimated number of facilities within the sector according to 

the Bureau of Census (See Section II). With sectors dominated by small 

businesses, such as metal finishers and printers, the reporting universe 

within EPA databases may be small compared to Census data. However, 

the group selected for inclusion in this data analysis section should be 

consistent with this sector's general make-up. 

Following this introduction is a list defining each data column presented 

within this section. These values represent a retrospective summary of 

inspections and enforcement actions, and solely reflect EPA, State, and 

local compliance assurance activities that have been entered into EPA 

databases. To identify any changes in trends, the EPA ran two data 

queries, one for the past five calendar years (August 10, 1990 to August 9, 

1995) and the other for the most recent twelve-month period (August 10, 

1994 to August 9, 1995). The five-year analysis gives an average level of 

activity for that period for comparison to the more recent activity. 

Because most inspections focus on single-media requirements, the data 

queries presented in this section are taken from single-media databases. 

These databases do not provide data on whether inspections are 

State/local or EPA-led. However, the table breaking down the universe 

of violations does give the reader a crude measurement of the EPA's and 

States' efforts within each media program. The presented data illustrate 

the variations across regions for certain sectors.1 This variation may be 

attributable to State/local data entry variations, specific geographic 

concentrations, proximity to population centers, sensitive ecosystems, 

highly toxic chemicals used in production, or historical noncompliance. 

Hence, the exhibited data do not rank regional performance or necessarily 

reflect which regions have the most compliance problems. 

Compliance and Enforcement Data Definitions 

General Definitions 

Facility Indexing System (FINDS) -- this system assigns a common 

facility number to EPA single-media permit records. The FINDS 

1 EPA Regions include the following States: I (CT, MA, ME, RI, NH, VT); II (NJ, NY, PR, VI); 

III (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV); IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN); V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, 

WI); VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX); VII (IA, KS, MO, NE); VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY); IX 

(AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific Trust Territories); X (AK, ID, OR, WA). 

SIC Code 10 98 September 1995 
--

Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

identification number allows EPA to compile and review all permit, 

compliance, enforcement, and pollutant release data for any given 

regulated facility. 

Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) -- is a data integration 

system that can retrieve information from the major EPA program office 

databases. IDEA uses the FINDS identification number to "glue together” 

separate data records from EPA’s databases. This is done to create a 

"master list” of data records for any given facility. Some of the data 

systems accessible through IDEA are: AIRS (Air Facility Indexing and 

Retrieval System, Office of Air and Radiation), PCS (Permit Compliance 

System, Office of Water), RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Information System, Office of Solid Waste), NCDB (National Compliance 

Data Base, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances), 

CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental and Liability Information 

System, Superfund), and TRIS (Toxic Release Inventory System). IDEA 

also contains information from outside sources, such as Dun and 

Bradstreet and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). Most data queries displayed in notebook Section VII were 

conducted using IDEA. 

Data Table Column Heading Definitions 

Facilities in Search -- are based on the universe of TRI reporters within 

the listed SIC code range. For industries not covered under TRI reporting 

requirements, the notebook uses the FINDS universe for executing data 

queries. The SIC code range selected for each search is defined by each 

notebook's selected SIC code coverage described in Section II. 

Facilities Inspected -- indicates the level of EPA and State agency facility 

inspections for the facilities in this data search. These values show what 

percentage of the facility universe is inspected in a 12 or 60 month period. 

This column does not count non-inspectional compliance activities such as 

the review of facility-reported discharge reports. 

Number of Inspections measures the total number of inspections 

conducted in this sector. An inspection event is counted each time it is 

entered into a single media database. 

Average Time Between Inspections -- provides an average length of 

time, expressed in months, that a compliance inspection occurs at a 

facility within the defined universe. 

September 1995 99 SIC Code 10 
--

--

Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Facilities with One or More Enforcement Actions -- expresses the 

number of facilities that were party to at least one enforcement action 

within the defined time period. This category is broken down further 

into Federal and State actions. Data are obtained for administrative, 

civil/judicial, and criminal enforcement actions. Administrative actions 

include Notices of Violation (NOVs). A facility with multiple 

enforcement actions is only counted once in this column (facility with 3 

enforcement actions counts as 1). All percentages that appear are 

referenced to the number of facilities inspected. 

Total Enforcement Actions -- describes the total number of enforcement 

actions identified for an industrial sector across all environmental 

statutes. A facility with multiple enforcement actions is counted multiple 

times (a facility with 3 enforcement actions counts as 3). 

State Lead Actions shows what percentage of the total enforcement 

actions are taken by State and local environmental agencies. Varying 

levels of use by States of EPA data systems may limit the volume of 

actions accorded State enforcement activity. Some States extensively 

report enforcement activities into EPA data systems, while other States 

may use their own data systems. 

Federal Lead Actions shows what percentage of the total enforcement 

actions are taken by the U.S. EPA. This value includes referrals from State 

agencies. Many of these actions result from coordinated or joint 

State/Federal efforts. 

Enforcement to Inspection Rate -- expresses how often enforcement 

actions result from inspections. This value is a ratio of enforcement 

actions to inspections, and is presented for comparative purposes only. 

This measure is a rough indicator of the relationship between inspections 

and enforcement. This measure simply indicates historically how many 

enforcement actions can be attributed to inspection activity. Related 

inspections and enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act (PCS), the 

Clean Air Act (AFS) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) are included in this ratio. Inspections and actions from the 

TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA database are not factored into this ratio because 

most of the actions taken under these programs are not the result of 

facility inspections. This ratio does not account for enforcement actions 

arising from non-inspection compliance monitoring activities (e.g., selfreported water discharges) that can result in enforcement action within 

the CAA, CWA and RCRA. 

SIC Code 10 100 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Facilities with One or More Violations Identified -- indicates the 

number and percentage of inspected facilities having a violation 

identified in one of the following data categories: In Violation or 

Significant Violation Status (CAA); Reportable Noncompliance, Current 

Year Noncompliance, Significant Noncompliance (CWA); Noncompliance 

and Significant Noncompliance (FIFRA, TSCA, and EPCRA); Unresolved 

Violation and Unresolved High Priority Violation (RCRA). The values 

presented for this column reflect the extent of noncompliance within the 

measured time frame, but do not distinguish between the severity of the 

noncompliance. Percentages within this column can exceed 100 percent 

because facilities can be in violation status without being inspected. 

Violation status may be a precursor to an enforcement action, but does not 

necessarily indicate that an enforcement action will occur. 

Media Breakdown of Enforcement Actions and Inspections -- four 

columns identify the proportion of total inspections and enforcement 

actions within EPA Air, Water, Waste, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA 

databases. Each column is a percentage of either the "Total Inspections,” 

or the "Total Actions” column. 

VII.A. Metal Mining Compliance History 

The following exhibit provides a summary of five-year enforcement and 

compliance data for the metal mining industry. Consistent with 

information presented in previous sections, the greatest concentration of 

metal mining activity occurs in the Western States, where the greatest 

number of inspections and enforcement actions also occur. 

September 1995 101 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 29 

Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance 

Summary for the Metal Mining Industry 

A B C D E F G H I J 

Metal Mining 

SIC 10 

Facilities in 

Search 

Facilities 

Inspected 

Number of 

Inspections 

Average 

Number of 

Months 

Between 

Inspections 

Facilities 

w/One or 

More 

Enforcement 

Actions 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

State Lead 

Actions 

Federal Lead 

Actions 

Enforcement 

to Inspection 

Rate 

Region I 2 1 1 120 1 1 0% 100% 1.00 

Region II 15 11 74 12 2 14 100% 0% 0.19 

Region III 9 8 47 11 1 1 100% 0% 0.02 

Region IV 28 20 209 8 5 7 86% 14% 0.03 

Region V 27 17 129 13 5 15 67% 33% 0.12 

Region VI 40 14 56 43 6 17 0% 100% 0.30 

Region VII 14 10 91 9 4 12 42% 58% 0.13 

Region VIII 135 62 284 29 13 32 100% 0% 0.11 

Region IX 54 42 346 9 11 13 31% 69% 0.04 

Region X 549 154 282 117 19 43 2% 98% 0.15 

Total/Average 873 339 1,519 34 67 155 47% 53% 0.10 

SIC Code 10 102 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

VII.B. Comparison of Enforcement Activity Between Selected Industries 

Exhibit 30 highlights enforcement and compliance information across 

selected industries. The metal mining industry had one of the lowest 

numbers of inspections among those industries represented, as well as the 

highest average number of months between inspections. 

Exhibit 31 provides enforcement and compliance summary data for one 

year for selected industries. Over half of the facilities inspected were 

cited for a violation. The metal mining industry also represented the 

greatest percentage of facilities with enforcement actions taken, at 19 

percent. 

Exhibit 32 presents inspection and enforcement data by statute for 

selected industries. As discussed previously, water pollution represents 

the most common problem associated with the metal mining industry, 

followed by air. Thirty-four percent of total enforcement actions taken 

were under the Clean Water Act, while 11 percent were under the Clean 

Air Act. 

Exhibit 33 provides a one-year summary of inspection and enforcement 

data by statute for selected industries. Again emphasizing the weight 

given to water pollution in the metal mining industry, inspections under 

the Clean Water Act represented over 50 percent of total metal mining 

inspections. 

September 1995 103 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Exhibit 30 

Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance 

Summary for Selected Industries 

A B C D E F G H I J 

Industry Sector 

Facilities in 

Search 

Facilities 

Inspected 

Number 

of 

Inspections 

Average 

Number of 

Months 

Between 

Inspections 

Facilities 

w/One or 

More 

Enforcement 

Actions 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

State 

Lead 

Actions 

Federal 

Lead 

Actions 

Enforcement to 

Inspection Rate 

Metal Mining 873 339 1,519 34 67 155 47% 53% 0.10 

Non-metallic Mineral 

Mining 

1,143 631 3,422 20 84 192 76% 24% 0.06 

Lumber and Wood 464 301 1,891 15 78 232 79% 21% 0.12 

Furniture 293 213 1,534 11 34 91 91% 9% 0.06 

Rubber and Plastic 1,665 739 3,386 30 146 391 78% 22% 0.12 

Stone, Clay, and Glass 468 268 2,475 11 73 301 70% 30% 0.12 

Nonferrous Metals 844 474 3,097 16 145 470 76% 24% 0.15 

Fabricated Metal 2,346 1,340 5,509 26 280 840 80% 20% 0.15 

Electronics/Computers 405 222 777 31 68 212 79% 21% 0.27 

Motor Vehicle 

Assembly 

598 390 2,216 16 81 240 80% 20% 0.11 

Pulp and Paper 306 265 3,766 5 115 502 78% 22% 0.13 

Printing 4,106 1,035 4,723 52 176 514 85% 15% 0.11 

Inorganic Chemicals 548 298 3,034 11 99 402 76% 24% 0.13 

Organic Chemicals 412 316 3,864 6 152 726 66% 34% 0.19 

Petroleum Refining 156 145 3,257 3 110 797 66% 34% 0.25 

Iron and Steel 374 275 3,555 6 115 499 72% 28% 0.14 

Dry Cleaning 933 245 633 88 29 103 99% 1% 0.16 

SIC Code 10 104 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Exhibit 31 

One-Year Enforcement and Compliance 

Summary for Selected Industries 

A C D E F G H 

Industry Sector Facilities in 

Search 

Facilities 

Inspected 

Number of 

Inspections 

Facilities w/One or More 

Violations 

Facilities w/One or More 

Enforcement Actions 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

Enforcement 

to Inspection 

Rate 

Number Percent* Number Percent* 

Metal Mining 873 114 194 82 72% 16 14% 24 0.13 

Non-metallic Mineral 

Mining 

1,143 253 425 75 30% 28 11% 54 0.13 

Lumber and Wood 464 142 268 109 77% 18 13% 42 0.15 

Furniture 293 160 113 66 41% 3 2% 5 0.04 

Rubber and Plastic 1,665 271 435 289 107% 19 7% 59 0.14 

Stone, Clay, and Glass 468 146 330 116 79% 20 14% 66 0.20 

Nonferrous Metals 844 202 402 282 140% 22 11% 72 0.18 

Fabricated Metal 2,346 477 746 525 110% 46 10% 114 0.15 

Electronics/Computers 405 60 87 80 133% 8 13% 21 0.24 

Motor Vehicle 

Assembly 

598 169 284 162 96% 14 8% 28 0.10 

Pulp and Paper 306 189 576 162 86% 28 15% 88 0.15 

Printing 4,106 397 676 251 63% 25 6% 72 0.11 

Inorganic Chemicals 548 158 427 167 106% 19 12% 49 0.12 

Organic Chemicals 412 195 545 197 101% 39 20% 118 0.22 

Petroleum Refining 156 109 437 109 100% 39 36% 114 0.26 

Iron and Steel 374 167 488 165 99% 20 12% 46 0.09 

Dry Cleaning 933 80 111 21 26% 5 6% 11 0.10 

*Percentages in Columns E and F are based on the number of facilities inspected (Column C). Percentages can exceed 100% because violations and actions can occur 

without a facility inspection. 

B 

September 1995 105 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project

SIC Code 10 106 September 1995

Exhibit 32

Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary by

Statute for Selected Industries

Industry Sector Number of

Facilities

Inspected

Total

Inspections

Enforcement

Actions

Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act

FIFRA/TSCA/

EPCRA/Other

*

% of Total

Inspections

% of Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of Total

Actions

Metal Mining 339 1,519 155 35% 17% 57% 60% 6% 14% 1% 9%

Non-metallic

Mineral Mining

631 3,422 192 65% 46% 31% 24% 3% 27% <1% 4%

Lumber and

Wood

301 1,891 232 31% 21% 8% 7% 59% 67% 2% 5%

Furniture 293 1,534 91 52% 27% 1% 1% 45% 64% 1% 8%

Rubber and

Plastic

739 3,386 391 39% 15% 13% 7% 44% 68% 3% 10%

Stone, Clay and

Glass

268 2,475 301 45% 39% 15% 5% 39% 51% 2% 5%

Nonferrous

Metals

474 3,097 470 36% 22% 22% 13% 38% 54% 4% 10%

Fabricated Metal 1,340 5,509 840 25% 11% 15% 6% 56% 76% 4% 7%

Electronics/

Computers

222 777 212 16% 2% 14% 3% 66% 90% 3% 5%

Motor Vehicle

Assembly

390 2,216 240 35% 15% 9% 4% 54% 75% 2% 6%

Pulp and Paper 265 3,766 502 51% 48% 38% 30% 9% 18% 2% 3%

Printing 1,035 4,723 514 49% 31% 6% 3% 43% 62% 2% 4%

Inorganic

Chemicals

302 3,034 402 29% 26% 29% 17% 39% 53% 3% 4%

Organic

Chemicals

316 3,864 726 33% 30% 16% 21% 46% 44% 5% 5%

Petroleum

Refining

145 3,237 797 44% 32% 19% 12% 35% 52% 2% 5%

Iron and Steel 275 3,555 499 32% 20% 30% 18% 37% 58% 2% 5%

Dry Cleaning 245 633 103 15% 1% 3% 4% 83% 93% <1% 1%

* Actions taken to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the

Toxic Substances and Control Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act as well as other Federal environmental laws.
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining

September 1995 107 SIC Code 10

Exhibit 33

One-Year Inspection and Enforcement

Summary for Selected Industries

Industry Sector Number of

Facilities

Inspected

Total

Inspections

Enforcement

Actions

Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act

FIFRA/TSCA/

EPCRA/Other

% of Total

Inspections

% of

Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of

Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of

Total

Actions

% of Total

Inspections

% of

Total

Actions

Metal Mining 114 194 24 47% 42% 43% 34% 10% 6% <1% 19%

Non-metallic

Mineral Mining

253 425 54 69% 58% 26% 16% 5% 16% <1% 11%

Lumber and

Wood

142 268 42 29% 20% 8% 13% 63% 61% <1% 6%

Furniture 293 160 5 58% 67% 1% 10% 41% 10% <1% 13%

Rubber and

Plastic

271 435 59 39% 14% 14% 4% 46% 71% 1% 11%

Stone, Clay, and

Glass

146 330 66 45% 52% 18% 8% 38% 37% <1% 3%

Nonferrous

Metals

202 402 72 33% 24% 21% 3% 44% 69% 1% 4%

Fabricated Metal 477 746 114 25% 14% 14% 8% 61% 77% <1% 2%

Electronics/

Computers

60 87 21 17% 2% 14% 7% 69% 87% <1% 4%

Motor Vehicle

Assembly

169 284 28 34% 16% 10% 9% 56% 69% 1% 6%

Pulp and Paper 189 576 88 56% 69% 35% 21% 10% 7% <1% 3%

Printing 397 676 72 50% 27% 5% 3% 44% 66% <1% 4%

Inorganic

Chemicals

158 427 49 26% 38% 29% 21% 45% 36% <1% 6%

Organic

Chemicals

195 545 118 36% 34% 13% 16% 50% 49% 1% 1%

Petroleum

Refining

109 439 114 50% 31% 19% 16% 30% 47% 1% 6%

Iron and Steel 167 488 46 29% 18% 35% 26% 36% 50% <1% 6%

Dry Cleaning 80 111 11 21% 4% 1% 22% 78% 67% <1% 7%

* Actions taken to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the

Toxic Substances and Control Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act as well as other Federal environmental laws.
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

VII.C. Review of Major Legal Actions 

This section provides a listing of major legal cases and supplemental 

enforcement projects that pertain to the Metal Mining Industry. 

Information in this section is provided by EPA's Enforcement 

Accomplishments Reports FY 1991, FY 1992, FY 1993 and the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. As indicated in the EPA's 

Enforcement Accomplishments Report, publications, nine significant 

enforcement actions were resolved between 1991 and 1993 for the metal 

mining industry. CERCLA violations comprised three of these actions, 

the most of any statute. The remaining cases were distributed fairly 

evenly with CWA and RCRA cited twice, and CAA, EPCRA, and TSCA 

each cited once. 

Two of the cases involved cyanide contamination from heap leaching of 

gold ores. Each of the settlements, one under CERCLA and one under the 

CAA, resulted in monetary penalties. The CERCLA settlement provided 

for company reimbursement of the Superfund for $250,000 in past 

response costs. Two other CERCLA settlements resulted in penalties: a 

penalty for failure to notify authorities of a release resulted in a $75,000 

fine; a judgment in U.S. vs. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation 

resulted in a $3.4 million award in favor of the EPA. 

Both of the CWA actions cited Section 404 for destruction of wetlands. 

Both instances involved placer mining and resulted in monetary penalties; 

one of the actions involved a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) 

requiring stream/wetland restoration. Another SEP involved a TSCA 

violation by Kennecott Utah Copper. In addition to a monetary penalty, 

Kennecott agreed to upgrade an emergency computer system at an 

estimated cost of $70,000. 

VII.C.1. Supplemental Environmental Projects 

This section provides a list of Supplementary Environmental Projects 

(SEPs). SEPs are compliance agreements that reduce a facility's stipulated 

penalty in return for an environmental project that exceeds the value of 

the reduction. Often, these projects fund pollution prevention activities 

that can significantly reduce the future pollutant loadings of a facility. 

In December, 1993, the Regions were asked by EPA's Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to provide information on the 

number and type of SEPs entered into by the Regions. The following 

chart contains a representative sample of the Regional responses 

SIC Code 10 108 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

addressing the metal mining industry. The information contained in the 

chart is not comprehensive and provides only a sample of the types of 

SEPs developed for the metal mining industry. (See Exhibit 34) 

Exhibit 34

Supplemental Environmental Projects

Case Name EPA 

Region 

Statute/ 

Type of 

Action 

Type of 

SEP 

Estimated 

Cost to 

Company 

Expected 

Environmental 

Benefits 

Final 

Assessed 

Penalty 

Final 

Penalty 

After 

Mitigation 

Sunshine 

Precious Metals, 

Inc. 

Kellogg, ID 

X TSCA Pollution 

Reductio 

n 

$6,588 Early disposal 

of PCB 

equipment. 

$6,588 $3,294 

VII.D.EPA Hardrock Mining Framework 

EPA is currently developing a multi-media, multi-statute hardrock 

mining strategy for existing EPA authorities, resources, and expertise in 

order to address the environmental problems posed by mining activities 

in the U.S., in concert with other Federal, State, tribal and local agencies. 

Some of the driving issues behind the strategy's development are 

concerns about overlapping and poorly coordinated regulatory 

authorities and actions; liability under CERCLA and other statutes, which 

may create a recurring barrier to voluntary remediation of mine sites; and 

rapid changes in mining practices that are leading to new environmental 

challenges. 

The strategy establishes environmental goals, to protect human health 

and ecological resources through pollution prevention, control, and 

remediation at active, inactive, and/or abandoned mine sites on both 

Federal and non-Federal lands; administrative goals, to use available 

resources and authorities most efficiently and to focus on the highest 

priority concerns; and fiscal responsibility goals, to promote inter- and 

intra-governmental efficiency and fiscal responsibility in control of 

mining sites, as well as to prevent future unfunded public burdens. 

Several objectives have been defined in support of these goals, including 

the following: 

• Facilitate coordination with co-regulators: employ a range of 

approaches to ensure coordination and communication 

• Use innovative approaches to foster efficiency: wherever possible, 

innovative tools (particularly non-regulatory) will be employed to 

help achieve efficient and timely action 

September 1995 109 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

• Consolidate priority-setting: establish multi-agency priorities to 

maximize scarce resources, help ensure benefits for costs incurred, 

and address the most problematic sites first 

• Promote fiscal/personal responsibility: promote responsibility to 

help owners reflect true costs of activities and to avoid incurring 

unnecessary and unfunded environmental and financial burdens 

for the public 

• Enhance capabilities of existing tools: use current administrative 

authorities to improve environmental problem-solving capabilities 

• Be proactive and preventative: ensure that environmental 

performance standards are quantified to the maximum extent, and 

that assumptions, risks, and uncertainties are identified 

• Promote protective closure standards and adequate financial 

assurances: establish closure performance standards and bonding 

requirements that will ensure mines are properly closed and that 

adequate post-closure care is performed 

• Perform timely and environmentally sound clean-up of abandoned 

mines: ensure that priority inactive and abandoned mines are 

cleaned up in a timely manner, addressing worst sites first, while 

avoiding costly efforts addressing mines with little or no 

environmental effects. 

In compliance and enforcement issues, the strategy promotes multiagency compliance approaches, developing a ranking system for 

determining inspection priorities, and developing a multi-media 

inspection protocol for mine sites. Other compliance and enforcement 

measures include: 

• Promoting use of environmental audits within the regulated 

community 

• Conducting an enforcement initiative to target mine owners and 

operators who violate requirements to obtain and comply with 

storm water permits 

• Compiling and circulating within EPA brief descriptions of 

successful mining-related enforcement actions brought by the 

Agency 

• Prioritizing action based on the extent of actual human health and 

environmental impacts; the potential for additional impacts; the 

SIC Code 10 110 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

likely success, technical feasibility, and cost effectiveness of 

response actions; and the availability of staff, equipment, and 

funding 

• Developing enforcement MOAs with other Federal agencies to 

facilitate consultations and joint actions 

• Improving consultation between EPA and the States to determine 

whether violations of Federal and State law warrant joint 

enforcement action. 

As noted above, however, EPA seeks to strengthen its use of nonregulatory tools to encourage environmental compliance and clean-up at 

mining sites. These tools are intended to complement existing regulatory 

programs in addressing mining impacts. Common themes of most nonregulatory approaches include: active participation by principal 

stakeholders, creative use of funding resources, site-specific flexibility, 

prioritization of clean-up projects, and regulatory discretion to promote 

creative problem-solving and early implementation of clean-up projects. 

Most non-regulatory approaches have one or more of the following 

characteristics: 

• Financial - Financial support often comes from a variety of sources 

when non-regulatory approaches are used; funds are often 

leveraged and budgets are typically tight. Other Federal agency 

funds are often used to supplement EPA funds; State/local 

partnerships can fill financial holes; and voluntary efforts by 

private parties can contribute significantly to clean-up of inactive 

or abandoned mine sites. 

• Institutional - Interagency Agreements (MOUs, MOAs, and IAGs) 

are tools that can be used to streamline the mining permitting and 

regulatory processes; more informally, interagency groups are 

often used to focus attention on certain projects or issues. 

Agreements to encourage consistent Federal positions are 

particularly important for siting criteria, operating criteria, and 

reclamation and bonding standards. 

• Technical Assistance and Outreach - Forms of technical assistance 

vary and may include dedicating either EPA staff or contractor 

hours to directly help a stakeholder; developing analytic 

methodologies, such as monitoring and testing standards; 

September 1995 111 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

providing education and training; and providing materials to small 

business assistance centers. 

EPA has identified several examples of existing approaches to using nonregulatory tools. Site-specific examples include the Coeur D'Alene Basin 

Restoration Project, the Clear Creek Watershed Project, and the Arizona 

Copper Mine Initiative. Non-site specific examples include the CWA 

non-point source funding approaches; RCRA Subtitle D Strawman 

guidelines; Mining Headwaters Initiative; technology demonstration 

programs; and the Western Governors' Association Mine Waste Task 

Force. 

As part of its hardrock mining strategy, EPA is developing detailed 

guidance for regulatory personnel who must apply various regulatory 

tools to specific mine sites. This matrix will highlight areas of overlap, 

gaps, unused but available authorities, and synergy among the various 

regulatory authorities. Envisioned is a document that will present 

various sources of pollution, a range of possible associated problems/ 

concerns/threats, and a short description of the tools applicable to each 

situation. 

SIC Code 10 112 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

VIII. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES 

This section highlights the activities undertaken by this industry sector 

and public agencies to voluntarily improve the sector's environmental 

performance. These activities include those independently initiated by 

industrial trade associations. In this section, the notebook also contains a 

listing and description of national and regional trade associations. 

VIII.A. Sector-related Environmental Programs and Activities 

Compliance Projects 

Region VIII has introduced "The Mining Initiative," whose goal is to 

obtain compliance with the Clean Water Act at active metal mines and 

metal mining exploration sites. The Regional NPDES program is in the 

process of determining the compliance status of the active metal mines 

located in the Region. Most of the mines (98 percent) are located in 

Colorado, Montana, and Utah. The States are trying to achieve deterrence 

through high profile enforcement actions which remove the economic 

advantage of noncompliance by assessing financial penalties. 

The Region VIII Water Division is taking an active role in monitoring 

State enforcement actions against mining facilities and State-issued 

NPDES permits for mines, encouraging States to apply consistent 

requirements to all metal mining facilities. EPA has requested that each 

State appoint a contact to work with EPA on this initiative. 

The Bureau of Mines Waste Research Program 

In 1988 the debate over the Bevill exclusion wastes and other 

environmental issues led the Bureau of Mines to initiate a new, 

comprehensive research program to investigate the environmental 

problems posed by the mining and minerals processing industry in 

managing waste. The new research program was named the 

"Environmental Technology Program" and was established to develop 

mining technologies that would ameliorate environmental damage caused 

by mining activities. 

The program's main elements are "Control of Mine Drainage and Liquid 

Wastes" and "Solid Waste Management and Subsidence." Control of Mine 

Drainage and Liquid Wastes examines acid mine drainage and migration 

of toxic waters from mines and waste disposal piles that threaten the 

quality of surface and groundwater. The Solid Waste Management and 

September 1995 113 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Subsidence program has two objectives: to investigate management and 

disposal methods for the solid waste produced by mining and minerals 

processing; and to develop new technology to mitigate the effects of 

subsidence and other environmental hazards caused by underground 

mining. Under ETP, National Mine Land Reclamation Centers have also 

been established in several regions to investigate the surface effects of 

mining and the problems associated with reclaiming abandoned, as well 

as active, mine lands. An important element of the program is 

cooperation with universities, industry, labor, State and Federal 

government agencies, and international institutions. 

The Bureau of Mines has also established an Environmental Health 

Research Program to focus on monitoring and controlling airborne dusts 

and emissions from diesel engines that are inhaled deep into the lungs, 

and which can cause respiratory diseases. Under this program, a dust 

monitor is being developed that will continuously evaluate dust 

conditions during the mineral ore extraction process and will alert 

workers to hazardous dust concentrations. Dust control techniques are 

primarily directed at reducing concentrations through use of water 

sprays, more effective use of ventilation, and modification of mining 

machine operations. Current Federal regulatory efforts for mining 

operations seek to limit the amount of diesel soot in the mine 

environment, while researchers are developing instruments that will 

allow diesel soot particulate to be sampled and measured in the 

underground atmosphere. The Bureau of Mines is also conducting 

research to reduce diesel soot emissions by filtration, ventilation, fuel 

modifications, and catalytic conversion techniques. Because of the 

confined, dusty, humid, and often hot conditions in the mine 

environment, this research will be widely applicable to the most difficult 

industrial and environmental dust problems. 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Mines Initiative 

Electrical transformers or capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs) are often used as power sources in underground mines. This 

equipment is regulated by EPA to prevent environmental release of PCBs, 

chemicals classified as probable human carcinogens. Abandoned mines 

often fill with groundwater, which can cause PCB-containing equipment, 

if left in place, to corrode and leak chemicals into the water; EPA 

regulations currently require removal of this equipment prior to mine 

closure. 

EPA and MSHA launched a joint effort in early 1993 to identify all 

underground mines using electrical transformers or capacitors that 

SIC Code 10 114 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

contain PCBs. During 1993, MSHA inspectors conducted PCB surveys to 

identify mines using PCB- or other liquid-filled equipment underground. 

Inspectors also identified any violations of EPA regulations governing 

PCB use, marking, storage, or disposal. A total of 85 underground mines 

that may use PCB-containing equipment were identified. EPA has since 

used the PCB surveys in its enforcement efforts, resulting in four mining 

companies being cited for PCB mismanagement and facing Federal 

penalties of up to $317,575. EPA has settled one of these cases, while 

filing three additional complaints. 

Mine Waste Technology Program (MWTP) 

In 1991 Congress allocated $3.5 million to establish a pilot program for 

treating mine wastes in Butte, Montana. Both bench-scale research and 

field demonstrations are conducted through the MWTP. Sponsored by 

EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory and the Department of 

Energy (DOE), the program is implemented by DOE's Western 

Environmental Technology Office (WETO) contractor, MSE, and the 

University of Montana's Montana Tech. MWTP program goals include 

the following: 

• Identify mine waste problems that are most severely affecting 

human health and the environment 

• Evaluate engineering and economic factors for selected 

technologies 

• Prioritize the most promising mine waste treatment technologies 

based on their engineering and economic value 

• Demonstrate, test, and evaluate the most promising mine waste 

treatment technologies 

• Accelerate the commercialization of selected mine waste treatment 

technologies 

• Transfer knowledge gained from the above through systematic 

training of user communities, and the use of workshops, short 

courses, video outreach, and graduate study support. 

The program focuses on developing and proving technologies that offer 

solutions to the remedial problems facing abandoned mines and the 

ongoing compliance problems associated with active mines. Other 

Federal agencies, such as USBM, BLM, and the Forest Service, are also 

participating in various phases of the research. Within EPA, the Butte 

September 1995 115 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

program is coordinated and teamed with the Superfund Innovative 

Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, and is coordinated with the DOIT 

(Demonstration of Innovative Technologies) Committee of the Western 

Governor's Association to assist in technology outreach and coordination 

among the States most affected by mining activities. 

The priority areas for research are: 

1) Source controls, including in situ treatments and predictive techniques. Such 

at-source control technologies as sulfate-reducing bacteria, biocyanide 

oxidation, transport control/pathway interruption techniques, and AMD 

production prediction techniques will help generate permanent solutions 

to mining waste problems. 

2) Treatment technologies. Technologies such as unique reagent utilization 

and use of natural and enhanced wetlands are high priorities for research 

to protect the environment from immediate damage until long-range 

solutions can be developed. 

3) Resource recovery. Much of the mining wastes represent a potential 

resource, since they contain significant quantities of heavy metals. 

Membrane technologies, ion exchange systems, electrochemical 

separation processes, selective precipitation, enhanced magnetic 

separation, biological treatment/recovery schemes, and advanced 

metallurgical processes are techniques that might provide effective and 

efficient separation and recovery of the metal values in both liquid and 

solid waste streams. 

In addition to those cited previously in the profile, specific MWTP 

projects include the following: 

• Nitrate Removal Demonstration Project focuses on developing 

innovative technologies to remove nitrates from effluent and 

drinking water through ion exchange, biological denitrification, 

and electrochemical ion exchange. 

• Neutral Chelating Polymers Research Project focuses on treating acid 

mine wastewater by using chelates (chemical substances with more 

than one binding site on the molecule) to remove metal ions from 

wastewater. 

• Photoassisted Electron Transfer Reactions Research Project focuses on 

treating mine wastewaters by using dissolved and solid 

photocatalysts to remove toxic cyanide and nitrate anions. 

SIC Code 10 116 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

• Science and Technology Information Retrieval System (STIRS) facilitates 

centralized access to various databases developed by EPA, DOE, 

Bureau of Mines, and others, including CD ROM databases. 

• Remote Mine Site Demonstration Project seeks to operate a waterpowered remote treatment facility for acidic metal-laden mine 

wastewater, using the Crystal Mine near Basin, Montana. The 

facility treats 10-25 gallons of wastewater per minute, using a series 

of rip-rap channels, water wheel-powered feeders, and settling 

ponds to conduct oxidation, adjust pH levels, and separate solids 

and liquids for ultimate disposal. 

• Biocyanide Demonstration Project focuses on using bacteria to 

degrade cyanide and cyanide complexes in mining wastewater. 

Western Governors' Association 

Over the past few years, EPA has enlisted the assistance of the States in 

developing an approach to regulating mining activities under RCRA. In 

order to facilitate the States' involvement in this effort, EPA has provided 

funding to the Western Governors' Association (WGA), an independent 

non-partisan organization of 21 member governors. In 1988, WGA 

formed a Mine Waste Task Force to coordinate the views of member 

States and to work with the EPA, the mining industry, the environmental 

community, and the public to develop workable mine waste management 

programs. 

Kansas State University 

Kansas State University's Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC) 

is an EPA-funded center that provides research and technology transfer 

services for pollution prevention and other waste management 

techniques, including mining waste. HSRC programs include outreach 

for industry, assistance to government, education materials, and 

workshops on pollution prevention and hazardous waste remediation. 

September 1995 117 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

VIII.B. EPA Voluntary Programs 

EPA sponsors a variety of programs aimed at waste reduction and 

pollution prevention. Some research-oriented programs, such as the 

Mining Waste Technology Program, are funded through other Federal 

and State agencies and are described in previous sections of this profile. 

Other programs that may serve the metal mining industry are highlighted 

below. 

Environmental Leadership Program 

The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a national initiative 

piloted by EPA and State agencies in which facilities have volunteered to 

demonstrate innovative approaches to environmental management and 

compliance. EPA has selected 12 pilot projects at industrial facilities and 

Federal installations to demonstrate the ELP program principles. These 

principles include: environmental management systems, multi-media 

compliance assurance, third-party verification of compliance, public 

measures of accountability, community involvement, and mentoring 

programs. In exchange for participating, pilot participants receive public 

recognition and are given a period of time to correct any violations 

discovered during these experimental projects. (Contact: Tai-ming 

Chang, ELP Director, 202-564-5081 or Robert Fentress, 202-564-7023) 

Project XL 

Project XL was initiated in March 1995 as a part of President Clinton's 

Reinventing Environmental Regulation initiative. The projects seek to 

achieve cost effective environmental benefits by allowing participants to 

replace or modify existing regulatory requirements on the condition that 

they produce greater environmental benefits. EPA and program 

participants will negotiate and sign a Final Project Agreement, detailing 

specific objectives that the regulated entity shall satisfy. In exchange, EPA 

will allow the participant a certain degree of regulatory flexibility and 

may seek change in underlying regulations or statutes. Participants are 

encouraged to seek stakeholder support from local governments, 

businesses, and environmental groups. EPA hopes to implement fifty 

pilot projects in four categories including facilities, sectors, communities, 

and government agencies regulated by EPA. Applications will be 

accepted on a rolling basis and projects will move to implementation 

within six months of their selection. For additional information regarding 

XL Projects, including application procedures and criteria, see the May 23, 

1995 Federal Register Notice, or contact Jon Kessler at EPA's Office of 

Policy Analysis (202) 260-4034. 

SIC Code 10 118 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

NICE3 

DOE and EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention are jointly administering a 

grant program called the "National Industrial Competitiveness through 

Energy, Environment, and Economics" (NICE3). By providing grants of 

up to 50 percent of total project cost, the program encourages industry to 

reduce industrial waste at its source and to become more energy-efficient 

and cost-competitive through waste minimization efforts. Grants are 

used by industry to design, test, demonstrate, and assess the feasibility of 

new processes and/or equipment with the potential to reduce pollution 

and increase energy efficiency. The program is open to all industries, 

however priority is given to proposals from participants in the pulp and 

paper, chemicals, primary metals, and petroleum and coal products 

sectors. (Contact: DOE's Golden Field Office, 303-275-4729) 

VIII.C. Trade Association Activity 

The metal mining industry's many associations have been active 

participants in exploring new avenues of pollution prevention. As noted 

above, some are participating in Bureau of Mines or MSHA research. A 

description of various industry associations is provided in the following 

section. 

The trade and professional organizations serving the metal mining 

industries are primarily organized according to commodity. In light of 

the controversy over mining law and the possible legislative reform of 

current mining practices, there are also several associations whose sole 

intent is to influence the reform process. 

National Mining Association 

1130 17th St. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Phone: (202) 861-2800 

Fax: (202) 861-7535 

Members: 400 

Contact: Richard Lawson 

Founded in 1995 with the merger between the American Mining Congress 

and the National Coal Association, the National Mining Association 

represents producers of domestic coal, metals, and industrial and 

agricultural minerals; manufacturers of mining and mineral processing 

machinery, equipment, and supplies; engineering/consulting firms; and 

September 1995 119 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

financial institutions that serve the mining industry. The Association also 

offers tax, communications, and technical workshops. 

Coalition for Responsible Mining Law 

c/o Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp. 

PO Box 1 

Coeur D'Alene, ID 83816-0316 

Phone: (208) 667-3511 

Fax: (208) 667-2213 

Members: 300 

Staff: 

Budget: 

Contact: Justin Rice 

The Coalition for Responsible Mining Law (CRML) comprises mining 

company executives, exploration geologists, small miners, and others 

interested in mining laws, organized as a means of coalescing Western 

mining interests behind a proposal to preserve the basic provisions of the 

National Mining Law (Mining Law of 1872). The coalition seeks to raise 

awareness about the law within the mineral industry, Congress, and the 

general public through specialized education. Publications include a 

periodic newsletter. 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

459B Carlisle Dr. 

Herndon, VA 22070 

Phone: (703) 709-8654 

Fax: (703) 709-8655 

Members: 17 

Staff: 2 

Budget: $150,000 

Contact: Gregory E. Conrad 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is comprised of 

States engaged in surface mining operations. The commission's purpose 

is to bring together State officials to discuss mining problems of national 

scope and significance. An effort is made to promote cooperation 

between States, private mining groups, and the Federal government, and 

to discuss, encourage, endorse, or sponsor activities, programs, and 

legislation to advance mined land reclamation. The IMCC publishes the 

NASL Newsletter quarterly. 

Gold 

Gold Institute 

1112 16th St. NW, Ste. 240 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 835-0185 

Fax: (202) 835-0155 

Members: 66 

Staff: 10 

Budget: 

Contact: John Lutley 

The institute represents gold mining and refining companies, 

manufacturers of products containing gold, and others who hold and 

supply gold. The institute advances the gold industry's interests by 

"developing information from worldwide sources on gold uses, research, 

technology, markets, and reference data," and encourages the 

SIC Code 10 120 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

development and use of gold and gold products. Publications include the 

bi-monthly Gold News. 

Lead 

Lead Industries Association 

295 Madison Ave. 

New York, NY 10017 

Phone: (212) 578-4750 

Fax: (212) 684-7714 

Members: 70 

Staff: 4 

Budget: 

Contact: Jerome Smith 

The Lead Industries Association consists of mining companies, smelters, 

refiners, and manufacturers of lead products. The association provides 

technical information to consumers, maintains a library, and gathers 

statistics. Its primary semi-annual publication is LEAD. 

Iron and Steel 

American Iron and Steel Institute 

1101 17th St. NW, Suite 1300 

Washington, DC 20036-4700 

Phone: (202) 452-7100 

Fax: (202) 463-6573 

Members: 1200 

Staff: 44 

Budget: 

Contact: Andrew G. Sharkey III 

Members of the American Iron and Steel Institute operate steel mills, blast 

furnaces, finishing mills, and iron ore mines. The Institute conducts 

extensive research programs on manufacturing technology, basic 

materials, environmental quality control, energy, and fuels consumption. 

In addition to technical manuals and pamphlets, the Institute also 

publishes the American Iron and Steel Institute-Annual Statistical Report. 

American Iron Ore Association 

614 Superior Ave, W 

Cleveland, OH 44113-1383 

Phone: (216) 241-8261 

Fax: (216) 241-8262 

Members: 12 

Staff: 

Budget: $260,000 

Contact: George Ryan 

The American Iron Ore Association represents iron ore producing 

companies in the U.S. and Canada. The organization's goals are to 

compile and disseminate statistics concerning the iron ore industry, and 

to provide a forum for discussing industry problems. The Association 

publishes a variety of documents, among them annual and monthly 

reports that detail significant occurrences in the industry. 

September 1995 121 SIC Code 10 
--

Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Aluminum 

Aluminum Association 

900 19th St. NW, Ste. 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

Phone: (202) 862-5100 

Fax: (202) 862-5164 

Members: 86 

Staff: 27 

Budget: $4,300,000 

Contact: David Parker 

The Aluminum Association consists of producers of aluminum and 

manufactures of semi-fabricated aluminum products. The association 

represents members' interests in legislative activity and conducts 

seminars and workshops. In addition, the Association maintains a 

library and publishes various documents, including a monthly Aluminum 

Situation. 

Copper 

American Copper Council 

2 South End Ave., No. 4C 

New York, NY 10280 

Phone: (212) 945-4990 

Members: 175 

Staff: 2 

Budget: $300,000 

Contact: Mary Boland 

The American Copper Council consists of producers, fabricators, 

merchants, consumers, and traders of copper. The council provides a 

forum for exchanging news and opinions between copper industry 

executives and government officials. In addition, the council maintains a 

relationship with the metal trade press and contributes data and 

background information related to copper industry events. A newsletter 

is published quarterly. 

Zinc 

American Zinc Association 

1112 16th St., NW, Suite 240 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 835-0164 

Fax: (202) 835-0155 

Contact: George Vary 

The AZA is an international association that represents primary and 

secondary producers of zinc metal, oxide, and dust from the U.S., Canada, 

Mexico, Australia, Finland, Norway, and Spain, who sell in the U.S. 

market the largest single-country zinc market in the world. The 

association's primary goal is to promote awareness of and to educate the 

public about zinc and its many uses; Zinc Essentials is the association's 

newsletter. 

SIC Code 10 122 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

IX. CONTACTS/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS/BIBLIOGRAPHY 

General Profile 

Encyclopedia of Associations, 27th ed., Deborah M. Burek, ed., Gale Research Inc., Detroit, 

Michigan, 1992. 

Mineral Commodity Summaries 1994, Bureau of Mines. 

Minerals Yearbook, Metals and Minerals, vol. I, Bureau of Mines, 1992. 

Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Office of Management and Budget, 1987. 

Sustainable Environmental Law, Ch. 16, Campbell-Mohn, Environmental Law Institute, 

1993. 

U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994, Department of Commerce. 

1987 Census of Manufacturers Industry Series 10A: Iron Ores, Bureau of the Census, April 

1990 (MC87-I-10A). 

1987 Census of Manufacturers Industry Series 10B: Copper, Lead and Zinc, Gold, and Silver 

Ores, Bureau of the Census, April 1990 (MC87-I-10B). 

1987 Census of Manufacturers Industry Series 10C: Ferroalloy, Misc. Metal Ores and Services, 

Bureau of the Census, April 1990 (MC87-I-10C). 

SIC Code Profile 10, Metal Mining, September 1994 U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics. 

Technical Document: Background for NEPA Reviewers, Non-Coal Mining Operations, 

December 1994, U.S. EPA. 

Mining Waste Releases and Environmental Effects Summaries, Draft, March 1994, U.S. EPA. 

Hardrock Mining Framework, Draft, March 1995, U.S. EPA. 

Acid Mine Drainage from Mines in National Forests, a Management Challenge, Program Aid 

1505, 1993, USDA Forest Service. 

September 1995 123 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Regulatory Profile 

CRS Issue Brief, The 1872 Mining Law: Time to Reform?, Marc Humphries, Environment 

and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of 

Congress, July 7, 1994. (Order Code IB89130). 

Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1991, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement 

(EPA/300-R92-008), April 1992. 

Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1992, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement 

(EPA/230-R93-001), April 1993. 

Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1993, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement 

(EPA/300-R94-003), April 1994. 

Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals, Volume 4, 

Copper, August 1994 U.S. EPA. 

Technical Document: Background for NEPA Reviewers, Non-Coal Mining Operations, 

December 1994, U.S. EPA. 

The Scope of the Bevill Exclusion for Mining Wastes, Van Housman, Environmental Law 

Reporter, November 1994. 

Mission Support Review of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), July 1992, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Information Resources Management. 

Hardrock Mining Framework, Draft, March 1995, U.S. EPA. 

Unified Agenda, 59 Federal Register, April 1994. 

Process Descriptions 

Annual Report: Copper, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

Annual Report: Gold, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

Annual Report: Iron Ore, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

Annual Report: Lead, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

Annual Report: Zinc, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

SIC Code 10 124 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals, Volume 4, 

Copper, August 1994 U.S. EPA. 

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, New York, NY, 1992. 

Pollution Prevention 

Control of Water Pollution from Surface Mining Operations, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1981. 

Innovative Methods of Managing Environmental Releases at Mine Sites, April 1994 U.S. EPA. 

Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals, Volume 4, 

Copper, August 1994 U.S. EPA. 

Technical Document: Background for NEPA Reviewers, Non-Coal Mining Operations, 

December 1994, U.S. EPA. 

Mining Waste Research in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Valois Shea-Albin, 1992. 

Mining's Future: Meeting the Environmental Challenge, Connolly, R.E., Battelle Press, 

1990. 

Mining: Technical Support Document, Internal Training Workshop Principles of 

Environmental Enforcement, Draft April 1994 U.S. EPA. 

The Use of Constructed Wetlands in the Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage, Perry, Allen, 

Cambridge University Press, 1991. 

Contacts * 

Name Organization Telephone 

John Roach U.S. Bureau of the Census 301-703-7066 

Roger Wilmoth U.S. EPA Office of Research 513-569-7509 

and Development 

Mel Shupe U.S. DOE, Western 406-494-7205 

Environmental Technology 

* Many of the contacts listed above have provided valuable background information and comments during the 

development of this document. EPA appreciates this support and acknowledges that the individuals listed do 

not necessarily endorse all statements made within this notebook. 

September 1995 125 SIC Code 10 
Metal Mining Sector Notebook Project 

Office 

Name 

Melanie Pallman 

Dan Tangerone

Ron Clawson

General Information

Division of Mineral

Commodities

Division of Regulatory

and Policy Analysis

Division of Environmental

Technology

EPA Document Availability 

Organization 

U.S. EPA Region VIII 

(inspector)

U.S. EPA Region X (inspector)

U.S. EPA Region IX (inspector)

U.S. Bureau of Mines

U.S. Bureau of Mines

U.S. Bureau of Mines

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Telephone 

303-293-1626 

206-553-1630 

415-744-1888 

202-501-9650 

202-501-9448 

202-501-9732 

202-501-9271 

Per the March 1, 1995 Federal Register, the following technical documents concerning 

wastes from non-coal extraction and beneficiation, were issued by the U.S. EPA, and 

are available at the RCRA docket, EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and all EPA 

Regional Libraries. Copies of most documents may be purchased from the National 

Technical Information Service at (800) 553-NTIS. Most documents are also available 

electronically on the Internet System, through the EPA Public Access Gopher Server. 

The following technical resource documents (TRDs) have been peer reviewed by State 

representatives, Federal land management agencies, mining companies, and public 

interest groups: 

TRD Vol.1: Lead-Zinc (NTIS PB94-170248) 

TRD Vol.2: Gold (NTIS PB94-170305) 

TRD Vol.3: Iron (NTIS PB94-195203) 

TRD Vol.4: Copper (NTIS PB94-200979) 

TRD Vol.5: Uranium (NTIS PB94-200987) 

TRD Vol.6: Gold Placer (NTIS PB94-201811) 

TRD Vol.7: Phosphate & Molybdenum (NTIS PB94-201001) 

The documents listed below discuss current mining waste management and 

engineering practices, and have been peer reviewed by State representatives, Federal 

land management agencies, mining companies, and public interest groups: 

Innovative Methods of Managing Environmental Releases at Mine Sites (NTIS PB94-

170255) 

SIC Code 10 126 September 1995 
Sector Notebook Project Metal Mining 

Design and Evaluation of Tailings Dams (NTIS PB94-201845)

Treatment of Cyanide Heap Leaches & Tailings (NTIS PB94-201837)

Acid Mine Drainage Prediction (NTIS PB94-201829)

WASTE: An Information Retrieval System for Mill Tailings References (not at NTIS;

available electronically or at RCRA docket)

The following documents provide historical context for EPA's mine waste activities:

• Report to Congress on Wastes from the Extraction and 

Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, 

Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale (NTIS PB88-

162631) 

• Strawman II (NTIS PB91-178418) 

• U.S. EPA Mine Waste Policy Dialogue Committee Meeting 

Summaries and Supporting Material (NTIS PB95-122529). 

September 1995 127 SIC Code 10